[Senate Hearing 118-29, Part 2]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 2

              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                           FEBRUARY 15, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. J-118-2
                               __________

                                 PART 2
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


                        www.judiciary.senate.gov
                            www.govinfo.gov
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
55-357 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024   


                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina, 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island             Ranking Member
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              TED CRUZ, Texas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                     MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
             Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
      Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                     FEBRUARY 15, 2023, 10:02 A.M.

                    STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Illinois, introducing Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, Nominee to 
  be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of 
  Illinois, and Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt, Nominee to be a United 
  States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois....     1
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  California, introducing Hon. Marian F. Gaston, Nominee to be a 
  United States District Judge for the Southern District of 
  California, Hon. Wesley L. Hsu, Nominee to be a United States 
  District Judge for the Central District of California, and 
  Monica Ramirez Almadani, Nominee to be a United States District 
  Judge for the Central District of California, prepared 
  statement......................................................    38
Padilla, Hon. Alex, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, 
  introducing Hon. Marian F. Gaston, Nominee to be a United 
  States District Judge for the Southern District of California, 
  Hon. Wesley L. Hsu, Nominee to be a United States District 
  Judge for the Central District of California, and Monica 
  Ramirez Almadani, Nominee to be a United States District Judge 
  for the Central District of California.........................     5

                              INTRODUCERS

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  Hampshire, introducing Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney, Nominee to 
  be a United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit.........     2
Hassan, Hon. Maggie, a U.S. Senator from the State of New 
  Hampshire, introducing Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney, Nominee to 
  be a United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit.........     3

                       STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES

Witness List.....................................................    37
Cummings, Hon. Jeffrey Irvine, Nominee to serve as United States 
  District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois...........    24
    questionnaire and biographical information...................    42
Delaney, Hon. Michael Arthur, Nominee to serve as United States 
  Circuit Judge for the First Circuit............................     7
    questionnaire and biographical information...................   106
Gaston, Hon. Marian F., Nominee to serve as United States 
  District Judge for the Southern District of California.........    25
    questionnaire and biographical information...................   155
Hsu, Hon. Wesley L., Nominee to serve as United States District 
  Judge for the Central District of California...................    26
    questionnaire and biographical information...................   199
Hunt, Hon. LaShonda A., Nominee to serve as United States 
  District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois...........    26
    questionnaire and biographical information...................   261
Ramirez Almadani, Monica, Nominee to serve as United States 
  District Judge for the Central District of California..........    27
    questionnaire and biographical information...................   317

                               QUESTIONS

Questions submitted to Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   351
    Senator Lee..................................................   355
    Senator Hawley...............................................   358
    Senator Cotton...............................................   364
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   367
Questions submitted to Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney by:
    Chair Durbin.................................................   371
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   372
    Senator Feinstein............................................   376
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   393
    Senator Lee..................................................   394
    Senator Hawley...............................................   397
    Senator Cotton...............................................   404
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   407
Questions submitted to Hon. Marian F. Gaston by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   411
    Senator Lee..................................................   415
    Senator Hawley...............................................   418
    Senator Cotton...............................................   425
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   428
Questions submitted to Hon. Wesley L. Hsu by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   432
    Senator Lee..................................................   436
    Senator Hawley...............................................   439
    Senator Cotton...............................................   445
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   448
Questions submitted to Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   452
    Senator Lee..................................................   456
    Senator Cotton...............................................   459
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   462
Questions submitted to Monica Ramirez Almadani by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   466
    Senator Lee..................................................   470
    Senator Hawley...............................................   473
    Senator Cotton...............................................   480
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   483

                                ANSWERS

Responses of Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings to questions submitted 
  by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   487
    Senator Lee..................................................   496
    Senator Hawley...............................................   503
    Senator Cotton...............................................   519
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   526
Responses of Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney to questions submitted 
  by:
    Chair Durbin.................................................   536
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   542
    Senator Feinstein............................................   553
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   595
    Senator Lee..................................................   601
    Senator Hawley...............................................   610
    Senator Cotton...............................................   635
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   642
Responses of Hon. Marian F. Gaston to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   652
    Senator Lee..................................................   661
    Senator Hawley...............................................   670
    Senator Cotton...............................................   687
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   694
Responses of Hon. Wesley L. Hsu to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   707
    Senator Lee..................................................   717
    Senator Hawley...............................................   727
    Senator Cotton...............................................   753
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   763
Responses of Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   777
    Senator Lee..................................................   788
    Senator Cotton...............................................   796
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   803
Responses of Monica Ramirez Almadani to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   815
    Senator Lee..................................................   824
    Senator Hawley...............................................   831
    Senator Cotton...............................................   849
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   857

      LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. JEFFREY IRVINE CUMMINGS

Alliance for Justice (AFJ), February 14, 2023....................   869

      LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. MICHAEL ARTHUR DELANEY

Carbon, Hon. Susan B., January 26, 2023..........................   871
End Rape On Campus (EROC), February 24, 2023.....................   874
Former attorneys general, friends, and colleagues, February 3, 
  2023...........................................................   875
Former New Hampshire Supreme Court justices, February 3, 2023....   879
Former presidents of the New Hampshire Bar Association, February 
  10, 2023.......................................................   880
Hunt, Jennifer, February 13, 2023................................   882
Know Your IX, Advocates for Youth, February 22, 2023.............   884
Matheson, Sandra, January 31, 2023...............................   886
McKenney, Kristie Palestino, January 29, 2023....................   888
Monier, Stephen R., January 31, 2023.............................   890
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV), February 15, 
  2023...........................................................   892
New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police (NHACOP), January 
  30, 2023.......................................................   894
Prout, Chessy, sexual assault survivor, February 13, 2023........   896
Ruel, Lynda W., February 1, 2023.................................   899
Sink, Marcia ``Marty,'' February 2, 2023.........................   901
Vachon, Allison P., February 1, 2023.............................   903
Velardi, Thomas P., January 31 , 2023............................   905
Willard, Enoch F., February 3, 2023..............................   906

         LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. MARIAN F. GASTON

Children's Legal Services of San Diego (CLSSD), San Diego, 
  California, May 10, 2023.......................................   907
Dumanis, Hon. Bonnie, retired, May 9, 2023.......................   909
Shess, Phyllis A., May 3, 2023...................................   912
Smyth, Hon. Michael T., May 4, 2023..............................   913

          LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. LASHONDA A. HUNT

Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA), 
  February 7, 2023...............................................   915

        LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI

Alliance for Justice (AFJ), February 14, 2023....................   918
Former classmates at Stanford Law School, February 13, 2023......   919
Former colleagues at U.S. Department of Justice, California 
  Attorney General's Office, and U.S. Attorney's Office Central 
  District of California, February 13, 2023......................   923
Miller, Douglas M., February 13, 2023............................   926

                MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings...................................   928
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney....................................   929
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Hon. Marian F. Gaston..........................................   930
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Hon. Wesley L. Hsu.............................................   931
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt..........................................   932
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Monica Ramirez Almadani........................................   933
Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, 
  introducing Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, Nominee to be a 
  United States District Judge for the Northern District of 
  Illinois, prepared statement...................................   934
Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, 
  introducing Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt, Nominee to be a United 
  States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, 
  prepared statement.............................................   935


 
              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2023

                              United States Senate,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. 
Durbin, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Hirono, Padilla, 
Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Kennedy, Tillis, and 
Blackburn.
    Also present: Senators Shaheen and Hassan.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 
  FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, INTRODUCING HON. JEFFREY IRVINE 
CUMMINGS, NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
   NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, AND HON. LASHONDA A. HUNT, 
 NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN 
                      DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee will come to order.
    Today we hear from six judicial nominees: Michael Delaney, 
nominated to the First Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Jeffrey 
Cummings, nominated to the Northern District of Illinois; Judge 
LaShonda Hunt, also nominated to the Northern District of 
Illinois; Judge Marian Gaston, nominated to the Southern 
District of California; Judge Wesley Hsu, nominated to the 
Central District of California; and Monica Ramirez Almadani, 
nominated to the Central District of California. We welcome 
them, their friends, and families. Congratulations, as well.
    We have several colleagues joining us to introduce 
nominees, and I'll turn to them after I introduce the nominees 
from Illinois.
    Judge Jeffrey Cummings, District Court for the Northern 
District of Illinois, received a BA from Michigan State, JD 
from Northwestern University School of Law, clerked for Judge 
Ann Claire Williams on the Northern District of Illinois. Judge 
Cummings then entered private practice in Chicago, where he 
gained experience in employment law, housing discrimination, 
and the False Claims Act litigation.
    He served as both administrative hearing officer for the 
City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, and hearing 
officer for the Chicago Police Board. In 2019, the judges of 
the Northern District of Illinois selected him to serve as a 
magistrate. In his time on the bench, he's displayed an even-
handed judicial temperament and dedication to the rule of law. 
He has an impressive breadth of experience in Federal court as 
litigator and magistrate judge. Judge Cummings, welcome to you 
and your family.
    Also pleased to introduce Judge LaShonda Hunt, nominated to 
the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Born 
in Mississippi, grew up on the South Side of Chicago, received 
her bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois at 
Champaign-Urbana, and her JD from the University of Michigan 
Law School. After starting her legal career as a staff attorney 
for the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit, she 
clerked for the late Judge Bill Hibbler on the Northern 
District.
    Judge Hunt, then worked as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the 
Northern District of Illinois, litigating cases involving a 
range of issues from Freedom of Information Act to employment 
discrimination. Following her time as Assistant U.S. Attorney, 
worked for the State of Illinois at the Department of 
Corrections and the Department of Central Management. 2017, she 
was appointed to serve as a bankruptcy judge for the Northern 
District. Since that appointment, she's presided over 
approximately 22,000 bankruptcy cases, 75 bench trials.
    Like Judge Cummings, Judge Hunt is highly regarded for her 
experience in the courtroom as a litigator and judge. Judge 
Hunt, congratulations and welcome to you and your family.
    I now turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Graham, for 
opening remarks.
    Senator Graham. I'm ready.
    Chair Durbin. We will now turn to the introductions of our 
nominees. We will begin with Senator Shaheen. Pardon me, I did 
the Irish version of that.
    Senator Shaheen. Yes, you just made me Irish in one fell 
swoop.
    [Laughter.]
    Chair Durbin. That works where I come from. We begin with 
Senator Shaheen, who is introducing Mr. Delaney. Please 
proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
  OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INTRODUCING HON. MICHAEL ARTHUR DELANEY, 
   NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIRST 
                            CIRCUIT

    Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Chairman Durbin and 
Ranking Member Graham, Members of the Committee. I am so 
honored to be with all of you, and with my colleague, Senator 
Hassan, to introduce Michael Delaney from the State of New 
Hampshire who has been nominated to the First Circuit Court of 
Appeals.
    Mr. Delaney is joined today by many of his immediate family 
including his wife, Caroline, his three children, Maggie, 
Katie, and Will, and his father, Arthur. And I know I speak for 
everyone here when I say welcome to all of you.
    Mr. Delaney received his law degree from Georgetown 
University Law Center and is currently the director and chair 
of the litigation department of the McLane Middleton Law Firm 
in Manchester, New Hampshire. It is our State's largest law 
firm. In that role, he's litigated in both State and Federal 
courts, representing both individuals and organizations in 
government and internal investigations across a variety of 
complex issues.
    Before his time in private practice, Mr. Delaney had a 14-
year-long public service career as a homicide prosecutor, 
deputy attorney general, legal counsel for former Governor John 
Lynch, and, finally, as attorney general for the State of New 
Hampshire. Mr. Delaney has also dedicated extensive time to 
serving the New Hampshire legal aid community, serving on the 
board of directors of New Hampshire Legal Assistance, the Legal 
Advice and Referral Center, and the New Hampshire Campaign for 
Legal Services.
    In describing his own judicial philosophy, Delaney said, 
and I quote, ``Unquestionably the most important 
characteristics are to fairly listen with patience, and to 
ensure that the individuals listening or watching you, not only 
trust that you're listening, but that they can feel it and see 
it.'' He's consistently demonstrated the temperament and 
commitment to equal justice under the law that I believe is 
necessary to be an excellent member of the Federal judiciary.
    His nomination is supported by former New Hampshire Supreme 
Court judges, New Hampshire victims' rights advocates, the New 
Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association, and former States 
attorneys general, just to name a few. Judge Susan Carbon, who 
some of you may remember served as director for the Office of 
Violence Against Women under President Obama, said, and I 
quote, ``Attorney Delaney was instrumental in forging 
significant systemic reforms in New Hampshire designed to 
improve the civil and criminal justice systems for victims of 
crime,'' end quote.
    Former Governor John Lynch, for whom Mr. Delaney served as 
legal counsel, called him, ``One of the most ethical people 
I've ever known. He is honest, has candor, and is forthright.'' 
And Governor Lynch said he, quote, ``Simply can't think of 
anyone more deserving of this position.''
    In talking to former Senator Kelly Ayotte about Mike, she 
told me that she put forward his name to be her deputy attorney 
general when she was attorney general. She said, ``Although he 
was a Democrat and I was a Republican, because I believed he 
was the most capable person for the job, I put him forward.'' 
She said she and Mike had worked on several very difficult 
murder cases together, and so she knew his capabilities and his 
good judgment firsthand.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Graham, I believe that Mr. 
Delaney's extensive and varied litigation experience and deep 
commitment to public service would make him an exceptional 
judge. I thank you, again, for allowing me to be here today to 
introduce him and I hope the Committee will support his 
nomination. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Hassan.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
  OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INTRODUCING HON. MICHAEL ARTHUR DELANEY, 
   NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIRST 
                            CIRCUIT

    Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Chair Durbin and Ranking 
Member Graham, and Members of the Judiciary Committee for 
holding this hearing. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, as well. I'm 
honored to be here today to join in introducing Michael 
Delaney, of Manchester, New Hampshire, to the Committee. And 
I'm really pleased to join Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, and 
a wide cross-section of Granite Staters in supporting Mr. 
Delaney's nomination to serve as a judge on the United States 
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
    I also want to take a moment to add my welcome to Mr. 
Delaney's family, Caroline, Arthur, Maggie, Kate, and Will. 
Welcome and thank you for being here today.
    Mr. Delaney is an incredibly well-qualified candidate to 
serve on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He has the 
character, intellect, judgment, experience, and empathy to be 
an exceptional judge. Mr. Delaney's extensive history of 
service shows that from day one on the First Circuit, he will 
be ready for whatever cases come before him.
    Throughout his career, a career that has included serving 
as chief of New Hampshire's State Homicide Prosecution Unit, as 
deputy attorney general, as legal counsel to Governor Lynch, 
and finally as attorney general, Mr. Delaney has done critical 
work to seek justice for the people of our State, including 
helping to create our State's first network of sexual assault 
response teams, as well as creating a comprehensive State 
commission on human trafficking.
    I've also had the privilege of working directly with Mr. 
Delaney in these roles, including when I was a State senator, 
and then during my first few months as governor. I saw 
firsthand his calm, rigorous, and unbiased analysis in the 
midst of challenging and sometimes very intense situations. He 
is a skilled attorney and problem solver, and countless 
individuals who have worked with Mr. Delaney agree.
    His nomination for this role has been met with commendation 
from a wide variety of New Hampshire and national leaders, 
including from the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of 
Police, multiple former U.S. marshals in New Hampshire who 
served under Presidents of both parties, New Hampshire county 
attorneys, the Court Appointed Special Advocates, or CASA, of 
New Hampshire, numerous leaders working to combat domestic and 
sexual violence, and a bipartisan group of dozens of former 
attorneys general from across the country.
    The president of New Hampshire's Association of Chiefs of 
Police wrote of Mr. Delaney, quote, ``My colleagues and I found 
Mr. Delaney exemplified all the best qualities of a prosecutor 
and officer of the Court, as well as administrator of the New 
Hampshire AG's office. His integrity and honesty is without 
reproach and his abilities are unquestionable. Mr. Delaney is 
not only one who worked diligently in support of public safety 
in New Hampshire, he did so with fairness, equity, and always 
consistent with the best interest of justice.''
    Twenty-nine past presidents of the New Hampshire Bar echoed 
those sentiments, writing, quote, ``Mr. Delaney is exceedingly 
qualified and has the professional and ethical commitment with 
regard for members of the judicial branch,'' closed quote. They 
emphasized that he has, quote, ``professionalism, ethics, 
temperament, and integrity that would make him a well-qualified 
judge.''
    Four retired justices from the New Hampshire Supreme Court, 
appointed by both Democratic and Republican governors, wrote to 
support Mr. Delaney. In addition to his strength as a lawyer, 
they cited his, quote, ``totally nonpolitical,'' closed quote, 
work in a position of public trust as attorney general and 
noted that his, quote, ``character, competence, ethics, and 
decency are above reproach and widely admired,'' closed quote.
    If confirmed, Mr. Delaney will serve New Hampshire, the 
circuit, and our entire country with distinction. I urge the 
Committee to look favorably upon Mr. Delaney's nomination. 
Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Hassan. As is the custom of 
this Committee, we welcome our colleagues to come and introduce 
their nominees and I know that you have a busy schedule. So if 
you wish, you can be excused at this point. Thank you very 
much.
    Senator Feinstein is going to submit statements as a 
support for the record, but we recognize Senator Padilla to 
introduce the California district court nominees.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein appears as a 
submission for the record.]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INTRODUCING HON. MARIAN F. GASTON, NOMINEE 
TO BE A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 
   OF CALIFORNIA, HON. WESLEY L. HSU, NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED 
 STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 
  AND MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI, NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES 
     DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking 
Member Graham. It's my honor to introduce three outstanding 
nominees to serve on Federal district courts in the great State 
of California today.
    First, Judge Wesley Hsu. He's the nominee to serve on the 
United States District Court for the Central District of 
California. He's joined today by his wife and their two 
daughters. Judge Hsu's path to sitting before us today is a 
story of hard work, remarkable intelligence, and, in my 
opinion, a case study in the American dream. His father fled 
Communist China, traveling 70 miles to the coast, with his 
mother and his developmentally disabled brother, as a child. 
Both his parents emigrated to the United States to attend 
graduate school at Kansas State University before moving to 
California, where Judge Hsu grew up.
    Judge Hsu earned his BA from Yale University in 1993 and 
his JD from Yale Law School in 1996, before serving as a law 
clerk on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 
California, the same court where he's nominated to serve today.
    He later served for a decade and a half as an Assistant 
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California in the 
Criminal Division, where he was eventually promoted to chief of 
the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section, 
prosecuting, hacking, and intellectual property crimes. Since 
2017, Judge Hsu has served as a judge on the Los Angeles County 
Superior Court, both presiding over family law and criminal 
court.
    He's an advocate for Asian-American affinity bar 
associations and the need for more diversity in the legal 
profession. Given his strong qualifications and his deep 
experience in the Central District, I know that he will serve 
the district with distinction.
    Next, it's my honor to introduce Monica Ramirez Almadani, a 
nominee to serve on the U.S. District for the Central District 
of California. She's here today with her husband and her 
parents. Born in Los Angeles as the proud daughter of 
immigrants from Mexico, Ms. Ramirez Almadani graduated from the 
Los Angeles Unified School District, before receiving her AB 
from Harvard University in 2001, and her JD from Stanford Law 
School in 2004.
    After school, she served as a law clerk for Judge Warren 
Ferguson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District. 
From the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, to the Immigrant 
Rights Clinic at the UC Irvine School of Law, to the California 
Department of Justice, to the U.S. Department of Justice, 
throughout her career, she's gathered extensive experience in 
immigration, civil rights, employment, and criminal law.
    And since 2021, she's served as president and CEO of Public 
Counsel, the largest provider of pro bono legal services in the 
country. So, whether it's been defending low-income immigrant 
clients, or in her capacity representing the United States 
Government at the Department of Justice, she has consistently 
demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. And 
given her broad range of experience, I know she'll be ready on 
day one to serve the people of the Central District.
    And finally, Judge Marian Gaston. She joins us today as a 
nominee to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern 
District of California. She's here alongside her husband today. 
Judge Gaston was born in Mobile, Alabama, and earned her 
undergraduate degree from Emory University in 1993, and then 
her JD from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1996.
    From 1996 to 2015, she served as a public defender in the 
San Diego County Office of the Primary Public Defender, where 
she handled thousands of cases and worked on more than 50 jury 
trial cases, and developed a reputation of being a highly 
ethical lawyer.
    In 2015, she was appointed to serve as a judge on the 
Superior Court of San Diego County and has also become chair of 
the California Judges Association Ethics Committee. She deeply 
cares about both the rule of law and the people and parties 
affected by the law, and she will remain consistent from her 
seat on the bench for the Southern District.
    Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Graham, this week, as we 
noted yesterday, confirmed the 100th Federal judge nominated by 
President Biden to the Federal bench. That's an accomplishment 
worth celebrating in a Nation rich in diversity of ideas and 
races and creeds, President Biden has kept to his promise to 
create a Federal judiciary that better reflects the diversity 
of the Nation that it serves.
    And today's nominees are just the latest reminder of the 
progress that we've made and the work that we can continue to 
make. All three nominees come from diverse backgrounds with 
different paths to today's hearings. But what unites them all 
is their commitment to our country and to justice.
    I'm confident that California will be stronger because of 
their service, and I urge the Committee to support their 
confirmation. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. While the staff 
rearranges the witness table for our first panel, I will 
explain to the audience that we divide these hearings into 
panels of circuit judge nominees, circuit court nominees and 
district court nominees. And today, Michael Arthur Delaney is a 
nominee for the circuit court, and he will be questioned first 
as part of our first panel. If you just bear with us for a 
moment, to get everything set up. Mr. Delaney, if you'd please 
approach the witness table.
    [Witness is sworn in.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Delaney. Welcome to the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. Please feel free to introduce family and 
friends and make an opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL ARTHUR DELANEY, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS 
       UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

    Mr. Delaney. Good morning, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member 
Graham, distinguished Members of this Committee. I am so 
pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you this 
morning. I want to extend a special thanks to Senators Shaheen 
and Hassan for that generous introduction. I thank President 
Biden for the honor of his nomination, and I thank Senator 
Kelly Ayotte for her support.
    Joining me today are my wonderful family. My incredible 
wife of 29 years, Caroline, a public interest attorney who 
advocates on behalf of abused and neglected children in New 
Hampshire's child protection system. Our three wonderful 
children, Maggie, Katie, and Will, of whom I am so proud. Also 
with us are my 91-year-old father, Arthur, and my father-in-
law, Kennan, veterans of the Army and Air Force, respectively, 
and my two oldest siblings, Bill and Kathy.
    My other brothers and close family are watching from nearby 
and afar. We lost my mother, Muriel, just this past fall, and I 
know she is with us in spirit. My father is a first generation 
chief probation officer, and my mother, a middle school 
guidance counselor. It was their example that inspired me to 
pursue a career in public service.
    I began my career in public service as a frontline 
prosecutor, overseeing death investigations, prosecuting 
homicides, and arguing criminal appeals to the New Hampshire 
Supreme Court. In those early years, I wore a pager on my belt 
at all times, and I responded to homes where violence struck 
and ended human life. I routinely met with so many surviving 
family members at those scenes, and I saw firsthand how 
violence causes unimaginable pain.
    In court, I attempted to elevate their voices to the 
attention of judges tasked with rendering fair and impartial 
sentencing decisions. I later served as deputy attorney general 
and attorney general for New Hampshire, and in those leadership 
roles, I drew often from my earlier experiences, and I tried 
hard every day to advance meaningful change in New Hampshire's 
criminal justice system, and make improvements to our State's 
multidisciplinary responses to domestic violence and sexual 
assault.
    I've been practicing now for nearly 30 years, and I've had 
a unique opportunity to practice law in many different roles as 
a public servant, in private practice, in criminal and civil 
cases, as a prosecutor, a plaintiff's lawyer, defense counsel, 
and appellate counsel. In 2013, I joined the law firm of McLane 
Middleton, where I have practiced for the last decade. I am 
aware that questions have been raised about a legal pleading I 
filed in private practice following a horrific sexual assault 
of a high school student by another student. I represented the 
student's high school in that matter, and I am prepared to 
address any questions this Committee has about that matter or 
my record as a whole.
    I am hopeful this Committee will evaluate my qualifications 
based on the entirety of my 30 years practicing. I am very 
humbled and honored to appear before you today. In all of my 
legal pursuits, I have been guided by the rule of law and the 
interests of justice, and if I have the opportunity to be 
confirmed as a circuit court judge, I will strive to embody the 
core judicial traits of fair and impartial decision-making in 
all cases. Thank you, and I welcome the Committee's questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Delaney. We'll have 5 minute 
rounds. I'll start.
    I noted that you have been graded as unanimously ``well 
qualified'' by the American Bar Association, which is a fine 
starting point. And then the Senators from your State have 
recounted the numerous individuals and agencies and 
associations that have also endorsed your candidacy. Very 
bipartisan and very wide ranging, I would say, in their depth.
    You understand the controversy. You've already alluded to 
it, of your representation of St. Paul's School. We have 
received a letter, which is now part of the record at her 
request, from the victim that you mentioned earlier, survivor 
Ms. Chessy Prout. I wanted to give you an opportunity to 
respond to what has been written in some newspapers and what 
you have seen in that letter.
    Mr. Delaney. Senator Durbin, thank you for the question. 
Let me start by briefly talking about my practice and then I'll 
move to that case. When I joined McLane Middleton, I joined an 
education law practice group that represents universities, 
colleges, and independent schools. So I joined that practice 
area and it was about a third of my practice.
    In connection with St. Paul's School, I represented the 
school in two related matters. The first was a criminal case 
where the State of New Hampshire brought a criminal prosecution 
against Owen Labrie, who sexually assaulted Ms. Prout. It was a 
most difficult case, given the national attention received, and 
Ms. Prout went through in that trial what no one should have to 
endure.
    There was a second civil proceeding following the criminal 
case, in which the family of Ms. Prout sued the school for 
failing to protect her. As an advocate, I defended the school 
in that criminal case. I advised the Committee that that civil 
matter ended with a confidential settlement agreement, which 
does somewhat impact my ability to communicate about it. But I 
want to address the pleading you referenced, Senator, at the 
beginning, if I may.
    I was an advocate for the school in that case, defending it 
in the civil case. The school was interested in having the case 
tried in a court of law and not in the media. And when Ms. 
Prout's family requested the opportunity to proceed anonymously 
in that case, the school agreed to allow the family to proceed 
anonymously, provided that the court entered relief to ensure 
that the lawyers would try the case in a court of law and not 
in the media.
    I was an advocate with a duty to represent my client to the 
best of my abilities. I recognize, if confirmed as a judge, my 
role will be very different. To fairly hear facts, listen to 
argument, and impartially apply the law.
    Chair Durbin. Mr. Delaney, there are two elements, at 
least, to Ms. Prout's letter that I would like you to address 
specifically. And the first is her allegation of witness 
tampering, and the second is the effort by you or your client 
to disclose her identity. Would you address both of those?
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator. Relative to witness 
interference, I believe that references the criminal case, 
Senator. As a reminder, my client, the school, was not a party 
to that criminal case. It was a case by the State who convicted 
Owen Labrie for sexually assaulting Ms. Prout. As a result, I 
had a very limited role in that case.
    I helped the judge schedule a jury view, because part of 
the case, at the beginning of the case, involved bringing the 
jurors out to the school to see the crime scene. So I 
interacted with the court in a limited way there, and I 
observed the trial on behalf of the school.
    But let me say this very clearly. I did not, in that case 
nor have I ever during my 30 years of legal practice, ever 
interfered with the prosecution of a case or interfered with 
witness testimony. It would be fundamentally inconsistent with 
my duty as an officer of the court. It would violate both State 
and criminal laws, and it did not happen.
    Relative to the pseudonym lawsuit, the lawsuit regarding 
the use of the pseudonym, Senator, I was an advocate. The 
school was interested in having the case tried in a court of 
law, not in the media. The school agreed to allow the family to 
proceed anonymously at all pretrial stages of the case. I did 
my job in that case as an advocate, and I recognize, if 
confirmed as a judge, I will be playing a very different role.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Delaney. Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Delaney, very much. Now, 
what relationship--working relationship did you have with 
Senator Ayotte?
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator Graham. I 
knew Senator Ayotte when we were both very young attorneys. We 
came together as homicide prosecutors and colleagues in the 
Criminal Justice Bureau of the attorney general's office. We 
spent a lot of time together prosecuting cases, going out in 
the middle of the night to oversee death investigations. And 
when she was confirmed as attorney general, she asked me at 
that time to serve as the sole deputy attorney general of the 
State of New Hampshire.
    I know her as a talented attorney. I know her as a 
dedicated public servant, and I've known her very well through 
the course of my career based on how we interacted with one 
another at the beginning of our careers.
    Senator Graham. You know, she gave a very glowing 
recommendation, which means a lot to me, and I hope the 
Committee will look at her evaluation of your professional 
capabilities. In that job, I guess you worked a lot with police 
officers. Is that correct?
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. I did, 
and New Hampshire is somewhat unique as attorney general's 
offices go. Much like the State of Rhode Island, the attorney 
general's office has significant authority to prosecute crime. 
So the attorney general really does serve as the chief law 
enforcement officer of the State. In that capacity, I worked 
side by side with local police officers, police chiefs, and 
State officials, and certainly had interactions with the United 
States Marshal's Office, the FBI, Secret Service, and so many 
Federal agencies. Appreciate so much what our men and women in 
uniform do to ensure----
    Senator Graham. In that regard, I think your nomination's 
being supported by different law enforcement groups from New 
Hampshire. Is that correct?
    Mr. Delaney. That's correct, Senator Graham. The 
Association of the Ten County Attorneys, lead prosecutors in 
the county, supported me. The New Hampshire Association of 
Chiefs of Police supported me, I'm grateful for their support. 
And I have several letters of support from former U.S. 
marshals.
    Senator Graham. And I guess in the job that you've had, 
attorney general and working with Senator Ayotte, that you 
dealt with victims of crimes. Is that correct?
    Mr. Delaney. I did, Senator Graham. I dealt with them 
routinely. I listened to them as a frontline prosecutor. I 
advanced prosecutions against individuals that had taken away 
their loved ones, and when I became attorney general, I tried 
to take those experiences and make differences for victims of 
crime in New Hampshire from a public policy standpoint.
    Senator Graham. What victim advocate groups are supporting 
your nomination from New Hampshire?
    Mr. Delaney. I've received letters of support from the 
honorable Susan Carbon, who Senator Shaheen mentioned served as 
President Obama's Director of Victim Witness Assistance. I've 
received a letter of support from Kristie Palestino McKenney. 
She served, also nationally, for the National Children's 
Alliance, which oversees quality assurance for the child 
advocacy centers that provide services for child sexual abuse 
victims.
    I've received letters of support from the current State 
director of Victim Witness Assistance for New Hampshire, as 
well as the former director of Victim Witness in New Hampshire, 
as well as all of the advocates I worked on the frontline with 
in my career as a prosecutor.
    Senator Graham. During the civil litigation that Senator 
Durbin mentioned, your law firm was representing schools and 
school districts. Is that correct?
    Mr. Delaney. That is correct, Senator.
    Senator Graham. Can you assure this Committee that if 
you're a judge, that every victim will be heard by you?
    Mr. Delaney. I can assure the Committee of that Senator. I 
think it is critically important for a judge to hear from 
victims and from all parties that have been impacted by a case. 
So, I would commit to listening to victims very closely, while 
fairly and impartially deciding the cases before me.
    Senator Graham. Well, apparently the people who are, you 
know, close to victims in New Hampshire have confidence in you 
and your judgment. So appreciate your willingness to come 
before the Committee and congratulations on your nomination.
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Graham. Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Counselor, 
congratulations. Help me understand what I'll refer to as the 
St. Paul's case, the civil litigation. In the civil litigation, 
what did the plaintiffs allege?
    Mr. Delaney. The plaintiffs alleged, Senator, that the 
school failed to protect Ms. Prout from being raped by Owen 
Labrie. The claims were in negligence and breach of fiduciary 
duty and Title IX.
    Senator Kennedy. And what were the plaintiffs asking for in 
damages?
    Mr. Delaney. They were asking for civil damages in the form 
of monetary relief, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. How much?
    Mr. Delaney. Senator, I can't recall specifically if there 
was a request made at the onset of the case. And I certainly 
can't speak to the aspects of the case that involve a 
confidential settlement.
    Senator Kennedy. Sure, I'm not asking you about the 
settlement, I'm asking you about the allegations. Were they in 
the hundreds of thousands, millions?
    Mr. Delaney. I don't recall, Senator, and I don't believe 
that they necessarily would have had to specify that in the 
complaint when they filed it.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right. You were in State or 
Federal court?
    Mr. Delaney. This was in Federal court in the district of 
New Hampshire, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. And at some point, you filed a 
motion with respect to the naming of the minor. Is that right?
    Mr. Delaney. That's correct, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Tell me about that motion.
    Mr. Delaney. The family of the minor----
    Senator Kennedy. But tell me about the motion first.
    Mr. Delaney. So they filed the motion seeking the 
protection to proceed anonymously.
    Senator Kennedy. So it was their motion?
    Mr. Delaney. That's correct. We had an op--the school had 
an opportunity through its counsel to respond----
    Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm.
    Mr. Delaney [continuing]. To that motion, and the school 
agreed to allow the family to proceed anonymously at all 
pretrial phases of the case, and asked the judge as a condition 
of that, to require the lawyers to try the case in a court of 
law and not in the media. We--as the lawyers approached the 
case, the school's perspective was that the request for the 
lawyers to try the case in the court of law as opposed to the 
media, was fully compatible with the family's request to 
proceed anonymously and with privacy.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. So, I'm just trying to understand. 
So the plaintiffs filed in the name of Jane Doe, and then the 
plaintiffs filed a motion--you didn't file a motion--the 
plaintiffs filed a motion to continue to be--to ask to continue 
anonymously. Is that right?
    Mr. Delaney. That is correct, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. And then the position of the school--you 
went to your client, St. Paul's, and said, ``What--How do you 
want to respond? '' And St. Paul's says, ``We'll agree to that 
so long as the plaintiffs' lawyers don't try to try this case 
in the media.'' Is that correct?
    Mr. Delaney. The position the school took was that they 
would agree to that, provided that the lawyers didn't try the 
case in the media.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Was that your position or was it 
your client's position?
    Mr. Delaney. That was the school's position, Senator. I was 
just an advocate advocating for my client as I had a duty to 
do.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. So, that's what your client told 
you, to file this response. You did. I'm assuming that St. 
Paul's school was getting the hell kicked out of it in the 
media. I'm not saying justifiably or not, I'm just stating that 
as a factual matter. And then--and then what happened?
    Mr. Delaney. The judge never got to hear the motion that 
was filed, Senator, because the family that had filed the 
lawsuit elected to withdraw the motion before the judge could 
consider it.
    Senator Kennedy. And what was the effect of that?
    Mr. Delaney. The effect of that was that the motion that 
was filed became moot, and the judge didn't need to address it 
and never addressed it. What I can say----
    Senator Kennedy. And so, the plaintiff continued 
anonymously?
    Mr. Delaney. No. At that point, the family elected to 
proceed without using pseudonyms, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. So, the controversy then is about a motion 
that the plaintiffs filed, that you responded to on behalf of 
your client, and the motion was never resolved, and the 
plaintiffs then decided to use real names. Is that right?
    Mr. Delaney. I believe that's correct, Senator. Again, my 
role in the case was as an advocate, advancing----
    Senator Kennedy. I get it. That's what I'm getting at. I 
mean, your job is to protect your client.
    Mr. Delaney. I had a duty as an officer of the court to 
advance my client's interest to the best of my ability, 
Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. What if you'd gone to your client--I'm way 
over. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I believe it's my last one. 
If you had gone to your client and said, look--well, strike 
that. I think I understand what happened. Thank you, Counsel.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Can you go past me?
    Chair Durbin. Senator Blackburn.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Delaney, I 
want to stay right there with that St. Paul's case. Because 
this is something of tremendous concern to me, that you would 
have advised, ``Let's make the name of a minor, public.'' And 
to me, that is something that borders on being disqualifying. 
And I read some last night, about this case, and about the 
``senior salute,'' and everything.
    I think the Prouts are with us today, and I'm delighted 
that they are, and I appreciate that Chessy put forward a 
letter that Senator Durbin has made a part of the record. We 
are in a time when we do everything we can to protect minors. 
And we had hearings yesterday in this Committee about kids' 
online safety and trying to protect them from sexual and 
physical abuse. And thank God the Prouts have a daughter, the 
older sister, who absolutely decked this guy in the face and 
gave him a shiner for graduation day, so that people had to ask 
him what had he done.
    And in Chessy's letter, she talks about how you met with 
some of the St. Paul's students prior to the hearing that was 
going on. So, would that be witness tampering? Did you advise 
them? Did you tell them what to say when they were on the 
stand?
    Mr. Delaney. I did not, Senator.
    Senator Blackburn. Did you try to soft peddle this?
    Mr. Delaney. I did not, Senator.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay, what did you advise them to say?
    Mr. Delaney. What I advised them--and let me first 
acknowledge your point, Senator. I observed that criminal 
trial. What the Prout family went through in that trial was 
horrific and unimaginable. What no one should have to go 
through. No one would want to see a child endure. It was--it 
was awful.
    Senator Blackburn. Then why did you take the actions that 
you took?
    Mr. Delaney. In the criminal trial, to get to the question 
regarding the witness involvement--Senator, the school was not 
a party to that criminal trial.
    Senator Blackburn. So, you were telling--explaining this to 
the students?
    Mr. Delaney. No, I didn't meet with the students----
    Senator Blackburn. Okay.
    Mr. Delaney [continuing]. Senator, I did not even know----
    Senator Blackburn. You were observed meeting with the 
students in a side room.
    Mr. Delaney. Yes that--I did not meet with the students, 
Senator. I did not know the witnesses.
    Senator Blackburn. You did not try to inform them?
    Mr. Delaney. I did not.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. But you felt like, that Chessy 
Prout should have been named from the beginning in that 
lawsuit, and your filing, you painted the school as a victim 
and Chessy and her parents as villains. Do you think that's 
intimidation?
    Mr. Delaney. I do not believe there was any intent on the 
school to intimidate----
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. That is your belief of an intent. 
Okay. Can you sincerely testify before us, this morning, that 
this case was not exceptional enough to require anonymity? 
Because you cited caselaw in your filing, that only in 
exceptional situations can a court grant a party anonymity. So, 
why should it not be granted to a 15-year-old child? Why would 
that not be exceptional? Would you not want that for your 
children?
    Mr. Delaney. I would, Senator. And if----
    Senator Blackburn. Then why did you advise otherwise? Were 
you trying to protect the school?
    Mr. Delaney. The school agreed to allow the family to 
proceed anonymously, provided that there were conditions on the 
lawyers advocating----
    Senator Blackburn. What kind of message do you think your 
conduct sends to survivors of sexual assault? Young women, or 
maybe young men, who have been sexually assaulted? What would 
happen if they had to come before you on the Federal bench?
    Mr. Delaney. I will----
    Senator Blackburn. What would they think?
    Mr. Delaney. I will commit to this Committee, Senator, that 
I will fairly and impartially----
    Senator Blackburn. You know, words have meaning. We look at 
words. We also look at actions. And last night, as I read this, 
I was taken aback that you would have thought a minor child who 
had been sexually assaulted did not deserve protection. I think 
it is chilling the message this sends to young women. You would 
stand up and you would defend St. Paul's, and you would defend 
senior salute, and you would defend those actions, but you 
would not defend a 15-year-old girl and protect her anonymity.
    And to me, this is something that is disqualifying in your 
background. We have judges that I think are--we've got one 
right now--Judge Edelman let somebody out knowing they were a 
danger to the community, and the person he let out killed an 
11-year-old girl at a Stop the Violence picnic on July 4th. And 
actions like this send a chilling message to young women in 
this country, and I find it unacceptable, and I will not be 
voting for your nomination.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator Tillis. 
Senator Lee, I'm sorry. That's right. You're right.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Delaney. I want 
to pick up where Senator Blackburn left off. In your filings, 
in not wanting to allow the victim to maintain her anonymity, 
you made the following argument in writing, quote, ``A court 
must balance the plaintiff's interest in anonymity against both 
the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the 
defendant,'' closed quote. I'm not aware of any precedent that 
supports this position.
    It does, moreover, appear to contradict every norm in any 
courtroom in America with regard to a child victim. I'm not 
aware of any courtroom in America where a child victim, whether 
still a minor at the time of the trial proceedings or not, 
where the victim wouldn't be allowed freely to choose to 
protect her anonymity. So, I'm struggling with this.
    Can you please explain to me how it is that you think or 
that you thought at the time--and normally, I defer to nominees 
in the sense that when somebody has a client to represent, they 
make arguments. Those arguments don't necessarily reflect the 
attorney's personal views. But there are some circumstances 
where lines are crossed, and where an attorney goes beyond the 
duty, and the professional obligation of providing zealous 
representation, and steps into some really murky hinterlands, 
to put it charitably.
    Can you please explain to me where you got this 
formulation? Here you have to balance the interest of any 
prejudice to this ritzy, elite boarding school, against a child 
victim who was still a child at the time of the trial 
proceedings. Can you explain what balancing that is, where 
you'd get that, and how you thought that it was even a decent 
argument?
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. As an 
advocate, the school did allow--agree to allow the family to 
proceed anonymously.
    Senator Lee. Well, how kind. It's not something that they 
bestow. This was something that you were trying to stop. A 
right that she had that you were trying to foreclose.
    Mr. Delaney. And what we did in the case, Senator, is we 
provided Judge Barbadoro in New Hampshire with an order that 
had recently been issued by Judge Walton in the District of 
Columbia, where he had both allowed the sexual assault victim 
in the case to proceed anonymously, while he simultaneously 
placed restrictions on the lawyers from speaking about the case 
publicly. So, we asked Judge Barbadoro to adopt a position that 
had recently been ordered by the Federal District Court in the 
District of Columbia. In addition, Senator, there has recently 
been----
    Senator Lee. That was not at the same time you were making 
this argument, that the victim's interests have to be balanced 
against the risk of prejudice to the institution. An 
institution that, according to the allegations, and, as I 
understand the facts, an institution that was aware of this 
senior salute, aware of the fact that it had not just become a 
tradition of debauchery, but of child sexual predation. What 
interest is there to balance there?
    Mr. Delaney. Senator, the Prout family had just a very 
strong interest in proceeding anonymously. There's no question 
about that. The school was asking the court to restrict trying 
the case in the media while that anonymity was being respected 
by the court.
    I will note that if I were confirmed to be a judge, there 
is recent caselaw that has been adopted by the First Circuit on 
this very issue, as recently as August of 2022, that sets forth 
the standard I would be obliged to follow regarding the use of 
anonymity in court.
    Senator Lee. Well, yes, that's great. I'm not worried about 
circuit precedent at this point. I'm worried about the argument 
that you saw fit to make. And I find the argument that you 
appear there to have been making against anonymity of a child 
sexual victim who was still a child at the time the trial was 
taking place, particularly confusing. When in another high 
profile case involving a child sexual assault--child sexual 
assault victims, and the Boy Scouts of America, it doesn't 
appear that you ever objected to the use of pseudonyms to 
protect the privacy of plaintiffs who at the time had reached 
adulthood, unlike Chessy in this case.
    So, how do you account for the different approach in the 
two cases? One involving a minor female plaintiff still a child 
at the time the trial proceedings were taking place, and the 
other case in which there were several, by then, mature male 
victims?
    Mr. Delaney. Senator, I don't recall the specific case 
you're referring to involving the Boy Scouts of America. I 
would like to simply acknowledge your point that I agree that 
under existing precedent, it is perfectly appropriate and so 
necessary for survivors of sexual assault to have the 
opportunity to proceed in court anonymously.
    Senator Lee. Okay, my time's expired. I just want to ask 
one yes-or-no question. Be very brief. Do I understand you now 
to be denying that you tried to deny the victim her right to 
anonymity? Are you saying you did not do that?
    Mr. Delaney. I am saying that the school assented to the 
family proceeding with anonymity----
    Senator Lee. After you had made this argument?
    Mr. Delaney [continuing]. Provided that the judge imposed 
conditions against the lawyers trying the case in the media.
    Senator Lee. But that's not the argument you were making 
there. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Tillis.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, my mistake. Senator 
Hirono.
    Senator Tillis. I've had two chances.
    [Laughter.]
    Chair Durbin. This is not a three-strike situation.
    Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, I ask the following two 
foundational questions of every witness who comes before any of 
the Committees on which I sit. So, I will ask you these 
questions as part of my responsibility to ensure the fitness of 
nominees to take the positions to which they have been 
nominated.
    Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted 
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical 
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
    Mr. Delaney. No, I have not, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered 
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
    Mr. Delaney. No, I have not, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Although I arrived late to this hearing and 
I apologize for that, but I had a conflict. You've been asked, 
I think, by a number of my colleagues to explain what happened 
in the case in which you represented the school. So, that I am 
clear, in terms of the question of anonymity of the survivor in 
this instance, perhaps you could explain why, on the one hand, 
it is important to protect the name of a minor in cases like 
this, and what the countervailing arguments are for how you 
proceeded.
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. The 
importance of anonymity is multifaceted. First, using the name 
of a sexual assault victim has the potential to both either 
physically place that victim in danger, or potentially result 
in serious psychological harm. There are also considerations 
that take into effect whether others, similarly situated, might 
not feel comfortable using the court system for fear that their 
names would be used.
    Those are--those are considerations of paramount importance 
to the court. If there are other considerations that are 
balanced to address the second part of your question, the 
importance of a fair and impartial trial in court is essential, 
and there's also the need at the jury phase of a case to ensure 
that witnesses who are testifying feel comfortable about how 
they're addressing the jurors.
    But the First Circuit precedent in this case, Senator, was 
just adopted in 2022, makes clear that sexual assault victims 
are an exceptional case, that they should be allowed to proceed 
anonymously, that if they cannot proceed anonymously, they 
should have a right at the beginning of the case under the 
collateral order doctrine to appeal that to the First Circuit 
Court. If confirmed, that is the precedent I would be obliged 
to follow, and I would follow it.
    Senator Hirono. That was not the existing precedent at the 
time of this case?
    Mr. Delaney. That had not been the precedent at the time of 
the case, Senator, which is why we addressed to the Federal 
court in New Hampshire some recent authority from the District 
of Columbia that the school believed was supporting its 
position.
    Senator Hirono. So, you are going to be on an appellate 
court, and generally in an appellate situation, you do not see 
any of the parties that were involved in the district court. 
So, in every case, however, especially--even in criminal cases, 
there are real people whose real lives are impacted by what the 
appellate court, what the appellate judge does, and often for 
these litigants, it's the worst day of their lives to go to 
court. So, how would you, as a judge, keep the real people 
behind every case in mind as an appellate court judge?
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator. As a homicide prosecutor, 
I went into court all the time with victims of horrific 
violence, oftentimes sexual in violence, and I know from those 
experiences just how important the interaction between a judge 
on the bench and a victim of crime is. It requires careful 
listening. It requires an understanding and background in how 
trauma affects individuals that have been harmed by sexual 
violence.
    And so, I believe that those experiences in my past, having 
given me an opportunity to see so many judges who interact with 
victims of crime, assure that their voices are heard and taken 
into consideration. As a judge, impartially and fairly ensures 
that all litigants to any case have an opportunity to be heard, 
and that justice is done based on the application of the facts 
to the law.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Hirono. Senator Tillis.
    Senator Tillis. Really?
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Tillis. Mr. Delaney, thank you for being here. Tell 
me just briefly why you want to be a judge. I'm going to get to 
your experience and how you're moving to a circuit without any 
past experience. I want to know a little bit about your 
personal experience to make you feel like you're ready for the 
job. But you had to know coming into this hearing that the 
subject that's been covered by a lot of my colleagues would be 
addressed.
    So you had to go through probably preparation for the 
hearing anticipating that. But just for somebody who has had a 
successful law practice, why make the move to being a circuit 
court judge?
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. I'm 
informed by my nearly 30 years of experience in public service 
and private practice. And answering your question on a personal 
level, I just love appellate law. I've done everything. I've 
done trials. I've done administrative law. I've worked on 
appeals. And the ability to ensure that cases are fairly 
reviewed for error, is something I think would--is an area 
where I could contribute.
    I also believe that the opportunity to serve on the First 
Circuit Court of Appeals, in light of the varied background 
I've had, is probably the most significant way I could 
contribute to my country and represent my State on that 
circuit.
    And I also, when I think about why I want to do it, I 
understand that what judges do every day dramatically affects 
people. Some for the good and some for the bad. And if I had 
the opportunity to be confirmed, I would dedicate the entirety 
of my mind, my heart, and my body to trying to make it right, 
knowing that every decision I made was going to impact people.
    Senator Tillis. We've had a few nominees come before our 
Committee, and I haven't heard anybody say anything about dumb 
tweets, or papers, or posts. So it looks as though your 
background on that score seems to be relatively innocuous, not 
rising to a level of asking you a question.
    We've had a lot of prior nominees come before the 
Committee. They had a lot of writings. They had a lot of 
statements about how empathy needs to play a role in your job 
as a judge. Where do you fit on the notion that either popular 
opinion or empathy, the wants or needs of activists, should 
have any role whatsoever in your ultimate rulings?
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. If 
confirmed, I would change from being an advocate to 
adjudicating cases. And I think the areas of influence on a 
circuit court judge are very defined and narrowed. The facts of 
the case presented to me, open-mindedness, and hearing 
arguments from the parties to the case, not people outside the 
case, and then decision-making that involves clear reasoning 
and clear explanation for litigants as to why a fair and 
impartial decision has been made.
    I don't believe that outside influences have a role in 
that, Senator. And it's not a place that would guide me, if 
confirmed, to be a judge.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. The last question I have relates 
to the horrible incident with a police chief losing his life, 
several other officers shot. I think a review of that said that 
there were no one problem, but several problems that needed to 
be addressed. How has that changed in light of that? You were 
AG at the time, I believe?
    Mr. Delaney. I was, Senator, and I believe you're referring 
to the tragic death of Greenland, New Hampshire, Police Chief 
Michael Maloney, who was shot and killed just days before his 
retirement, backing up a drug raid that went bad.
    When I was attorney general and we lost Chief Maloney, I 
immediately commissioned an independent group of law 
enforcement officers to review that matter and ensure that we 
learned from it everything we could, having lost him in the 
manner that we did. They adopted a report that called for many 
reforms of the drug task force that oversaw that raid. We 
changed leadership in the law enforcement group that was in 
charge of that raid, and law enforcement as a community went 
together about fixing the things that had gone wrong.
    Senator Tillis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Hawley.
    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Delaney, I've 
been listening to your answers about your conduct in the St. 
Paul's case and I have to tell you, I'm having a hard time 
following what it is you're saying. You've said now several 
times that the school only wanted the court case to be tried in 
a court of law, not in the media.
    But your attempt to strip anonymity from Chessy was exactly 
an attempt to try this case in the media. Right? It was an 
attempt to bring her name forward so everybody would know who 
she was. She's 16. Everybody would know exactly who she was, 
could look her up, could threaten her, intimidate her. I mean, 
this was an attempt to put her squarely into the media 
spotlight nationally. Right?
    Mr. Delaney. Senator, thank you for the question. I 
respectfully disagree that the school's intent in trying to 
require the lawyers to try the case in the court of law was in 
any way intended to intimidate any of the parties to the case.
    Senator Hawley. How can you say that when you knew full 
well that a 16-year-old girl would have her name published, 
would have reporters no doubt in her front lawn, would have 
people following her around with cameras everywhere. Her 
family's sitting here today. They've already been through hell. 
Your motion was an attempt to put them through further hell in 
order to defend your client. Right?
    Mr. Delaney. Senator, I was an advocate for the school in 
that case----
    Senator Hawley. I understand that. But as advocates--I have 
been too, and as advocates, we make decisions, but we're 
responsible for those decisions. You made a decision here. You 
made a decision to try to strip a young girl of her anonymity 
and you effectively succeeded because you bullied her into it.
    So she, unwilling to be intimidated by you, went forward 
and revealed her own name, which took, by the way, tremendous 
courage. And I'd just like to honor her for her courage in 
doing that. But you put her to that choice. You did. That was 
your choice. So, that's fine. You made the choice, but now 
you're accountable for it. So, let's have some accountability 
here.
    You deliberately did this in a way that would put her at 
risk, and that was your intent. Have you read the letter that 
she submitted to this Committee?
    Mr. Delaney. I have read the letter that was submitted to 
this Committee.
    Senator Hawley. Let me read some of it to you. She says, 
and I quote, ``I remember so clearly reading Michael Delaney's 
motion from front to back when I came home from my new high 
school one day, processing what it meant, and then defiantly 
stating to my parents that after everything I'd been dragged 
through (from anonymous death and rape threats on the internet 
to the betrayal of and backlash from my closest friends at 
school) I wasn't going to let Michael Delaney's dirty tactics 
bully me, then 16 years old, into shame and silence.''
    She goes on, and this is important, ``When survivors of 
sexual assault, harassment, and abuse come forward to seek some 
semblance of justice, there is an army of attorneys with a 
tried and true playbook of tactics to discredit, pressure, and 
manipulate survivors and victims into silence.'' Those are the 
tactics that you use, Mr. Delaney.
    Mr. Delaney. Senator, I respectfully disagree with that 
characterization of the role I played as an advocate in the 
case. The school agreed to allow the case to proceed with 
anonymity. I have----
    Senator Hawley. No, you didn't. You filed a motion that 
specifically struck to strip her anonymity. I have it right 
here. I've read it and I've read your reasons for doing so. The 
school didn't like the time that the parents, and Chessy, filed 
their lawsuit. You complain that counsel filed the complaints 
minute before the clerk of the court's office closed on June 
1st, 2016.
    Well, I'm sorry for you, but I don't understand why your 
inconvenience about the time should mean that this young woman 
should have to surrender her anonymity and have her life--she's 
a survivor of sexual assault, let's not forget. That already 
happened. You knew that. Why should she have to have her life 
further destroyed because you didn't like the timing of the 
filing?
    Mr. Delaney. Senator, I represented the school in that 
case. I did not represent the Prout family. I understood what 
they went through. The school felt that the request to restrict 
the lawyers from trying the case in the media was compatible 
with her desire to proceed with privacy and anonymity.
    Senator Hawley. I don't understand what you're saying. You 
filed a motion that sought to strip her anonymity. You told the 
court that it should happen because you didn't like the time at 
which her counsel filed their complaint because it put your 
school at an inconvenience. They had to answer reporter 
questions, you said. Frankly, that seems to me like a small 
burden to bear after what Chessy went through.
    So, you made the decision. You forced her to come forward. 
She was brave and did it. And now you're accountable for that. 
And quite frankly, I'm astounded you've been nominated. I can't 
believe we're sitting here having this conversation today. And 
I, for one, will not support your nomination for these reasons. 
People who put sexual assault victims through this kind of 
torture shouldn't sit on the bench. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Cornyn.
    Senator Cornyn. Mr. Delaney, let me ask you a series of 
questions here. My first question is, did you disclose this 
case in the questionnaire that was submitted to you for this 
nomination?
    Mr. Delaney. If you're referencing to the 10 top cases that 
I was asked to disclose, Senator, I did not. In part, 
disclosing cases that are controlled by confidential settlement 
agreements is something I think all applicants to this process 
take into consideration. The other reason it's not in there is, 
after this pleading was addressed, there was very little 
additional courtroom work in the case before the case settled. 
So there just wasn't a lot of legal proceedings in this case 
other than the first motion we've discussed.
    Senator Cornyn. Did you think that this would not become an 
issue in your confirmation hearing?
    Mr. Delaney. No. I was aware that questions had been raised 
regarding it, Senator.
    Senator Cornyn. So, as I understand it, you filed a motion 
to remove anonymity from the victim of the sexual assault, but 
the court never actually ruled on it. Is that correct?
    Mr. Delaney. The school did not file a motion to remove 
anonymity. The school filed a motion assenting to anonymity at 
pretrial stages, provided the lawyers were restricted from 
trying the case in the media. That was the motion that was 
filed. And it was never ruled on by the judge because it was 
withdrawn before the judge had an opportunity to consider it.
    Senator Cornyn. So, it was a conditional motion? 
Conditioned on the court instructing the lawyers not to try the 
case in the media?
    Mr. Delaney. It was a conditional assent to the request to 
proceed anonymously, provided the judge imposed conditions 
requiring the lawyers to try the case in a court of law and not 
in the media.
    Senator Cornyn. And so, if the court had not ruled on that 
portion of your motion with regard to trying the case in the 
media, would you have proceeded to seek to identify the victim 
in the court proceeding?
    Mr. Delaney. No, Senator. The school did not seek----
    Senator Cornyn. Well, I don't understand your statement 
then. You said it was--it sounded to me like you're saying you 
conditioned your assent to anonymity on the court ordering the 
lawyers not to try the case in the media. And I'm asking, if 
the court had not ruled on that portion of the motion with 
regard to trying the case in the media, would you have 
continued--would you have withdrawn your assent to proceeding 
anonymously?
    Mr. Delaney. So, that matter was never presented, Senator. 
My expectation is it--that if the school did not get the 
conditional relief that it wanted, given the age of the minor, 
my expectation is that the case would have proceeded with her 
using anonymous names. That's my expectation as to what would 
have happened.
    Senator Cornyn. You mentioned a case in the District of 
Columbia, I believe it was Doe v. Cabrera, that was the 
precedent that you sought to apply in this case. But in fact, 
in that case, the plaintiff was not a minor at the time of the 
incident, and at the time of trial, was a 27-year-old. So, how 
is that analogous to the case we're referring to?
    Mr. Delaney. It's not analogous relative to the age of the 
participants. That's a clear distinction you're identifying, 
Senator----
    Senator Cornyn. But on what basis would you argue that an 
adult that that would be analogous to this minor?
    Mr. Delaney. That's not an argument I would have made, and 
we didn't make that argument. The reason we presented that case 
to Judge Barbadoro, was because Judge Walton had granted 
anonymity in the case and coupled it with an order requiring 
the lawyers to try the case in a court of law and not in the 
media.
    So, the relief entered by Judge Walton was to allow that 
sexual assault victim to proceed anonymously and to tamper down 
what the lawyers were doing in the media. That is the request 
we made of the Federal court in New Hampshire. I agree, the 
factual standpoint of that case in terms of the age of the 
parties was quite different.
    Senator Cornyn. Well, the victim in the St. Paul's School 
case, the trial against her assailant resulted in a conviction. 
Correct? In a criminal court?
    Mr. Delaney. It did. Owen Labrie sexually assaulted her. He 
was brought to justice by a jury, and he was convicted of that 
sexual assault.
    Senator Cornyn. And did your client settle the civil case 
by paying the victim money?
    Mr. Delaney. This is where I'm bound by my obligations of a 
confidential settlement agreement, Senator. I'm prohibited, 
given my duties as an officer of the court, from answering your 
question.
    Senator Cornyn. Is that a court order?
    Mr. Delaney. There's a confidential settlement agreement 
that would prohibit me from addressing your question.
    Senator Cornyn. So, if I looked at the court records, what 
would the judgment in the civil case reflect?
    Mr. Delaney. You would see a stipulation of dismissal filed 
by the parties, and you would see nothing about the specific 
terms on which the case settled.
    Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Delaney, this hearing's not going well 
for you. And there's a reason for it. Because as much as you 
may be concerned that it's not going well for you, it's gone 
far worse for Chessy Prout. The focus of this discussion began 
when a 15-year-old freshman was sexually assaulted by a senior 
as part of a campus custom known as senior salute. A game where 
upperclassmen competed to have sex with younger students.
    In 2015, the culprit was acquitted of felony rape, but 
found guilty of misdemeanor sexual assault and endangering the 
welfare of a child. You have repeatedly said you were just an 
advocate. You were just representing the school, where the 
school was St. Paul's, one of the most prestigious boarding 
schools in America. And yet, in your representation of St. 
Paul's, it was St. Paul's that was the victim. You portrayed 
the school that a sitting U.S. Senator, indeed, a Member of 
this Committee, attended. Former Secretary of State John Kerry 
attended. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller attended. A member 
of the Kennedy family and three Vanderbilts have attended.
    And in your view, that school was the victim, not the 15-
year-old girl who was sexually assaulted. Your response to 
Senator Hawley was, ``I was just representing my clients.'' 
Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Delaney, you represented your clients 
very poorly. Because as a lawyer, if your client is a school 
and they've decided their strategy is to out the girl that was 
sexually assaulted while in their care and custody, that school 
is doing a crappy job. And the lawyer who goes in and says, 
``Sir, yes, sir. Happy to do it,'' is doing a lousy job 
representing his client.
    Now, just a moment ago, you answered questions from Senator 
Cornyn. I actually wrote down a couple of things. Earlier in 
the day, you acknowledged, very kindly, that the Prout family--
I'm quoting you, ``The Prout family had a strong interest in 
anonymity.'' And then, just a moment ago, you answered Senator 
Cornyn, I wrote it down again. ``The school did not file a 
motion to remove anonymity.'' Mr. Delaney, that testimony is 
false.
    I want to read from the motion you filed, that is right 
here. This is on page 2: ``The school recognizes that JD has an 
interest in protecting her anonymity.'' Now, notice you told 
this Committee the Prout family had a ``strong'' interest. 
Oddly enough, the word ``strong'' was not in your pleading. You 
graciously conceded they have ``an interest.'' Okay. ``However, 
in balancing that interest against the prejudice to the school 
and the public interest in disclosure, the following 
commonsense measures should be taken to mitigate the prejudice 
to the school, the victim, elite private boarding school. The 
school shall be entitled to identify plaintiffs and JD during 
discovery. Plaintiffs and JD should not be allowed to proceed 
under pseudonyms at the trial of the matter.''
    You asked the court, ``Strip her anonymity,'' and you just 
told Senator Cornyn, ``I didn't ask the court to strip her 
anonymity.'' Why did you give a false answer to Senator Cornyn?
    Mr. Delaney. Senator Cruz, thank you for the question. I 
did not in any way intend to provide any misleading answers. 
The section of the brief that you're referencing involves the 
use of a pseudonym at trial as opposed to at pretrial phases of 
the case. And I'm not aware of----
    Senator Cruz. And so, your view is it's, ``common sense,'' 
that's the word you used, that a teenager, the victim of sexual 
assault should be stripped of a pseudonym. That's just a 
commonsense step?
    Mr. Delaney. No. I'm saying that First Circuit precedent 
treats the use of fictitious names before a jury at a trial, 
quite differently than it does at pretrial phases.
    Senator Cruz. So, Mr. And Mrs. Prout are here today. Thank 
you for coming. You and your daughter have been victimized now 
three times. First, on that horrific night. Second, when Mr. 
Delaney, representing the school, went into court and tried to 
strip your daughter's anonymity, tried to out her against her 
wishes. And third, when the Biden administration chose to 
reward him by nominating him to the Court of Appeals.
    I would encourage everyone to read the letter that Chessy 
Prout has filed. And, Mr. Delaney, there is a reason why 
virtually every Democrat has skipped this hearing. They're 
embarrassed about this nomination.
    I want to read one paragraph from this letter and ask you a 
final question. From Chessy Prout: ``If Michael Delaney is 
confirmed--if an attorney who has brazenly intimidated a minor 
victim of sexual assault is given the distinct privilege to 
serve as a judge for the United States Court of Appeals--you 
are telling victims and survivors that you not only approve of 
victim intimidation tactics, you reward their enactors with one 
of the highest legal appointments in the State of 
Massachusetts.'' She goes on to say, she made this point to the 
Biden Justice Department.
    Mr. Delaney, if this Committee votes to confirm you, what 
message does that tell every other victim of sexual assault--
child victim of sexual assault, if seeking to out them publicly 
gets rewarded with the judicial nomination?
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. I have 
spent nearly 30 years in my legal career, half of that in 
public service. I have tried through my work as attorney 
general and as a frontline prosecutor to represent the 
interests of victims in all that I did. I would ask this 
Committee to consider the totality of my record over nearly 30 
years as it reviews my qualifications.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Delaney. No further questions 
coming from the panel. We appreciate your attendance today.
    Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator.
    Chair Durbin. There may be written questions to follow up 
and if you'll please respond to those promptly, we'd appreciate 
it very much.
    Second panel, please approach the table.
    [Pause.]
    If the nominees would remain standing and take the oath. 
Please raise your right hand.
    [Witnesses are sworn in.]
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Judge Cummings, I thought you were 
going to have counsel with you there. I saw her approaching the 
table.
    [Laughter.]
    Chair Durbin. Please proceed. You have 5 minutes to 
introduce family, friends, and make a statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY IRVINE CUMMINGS, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS 
   UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 
                            ILLINOIS

    Judge Cummings. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member 
Graham, and the other Members of the Committee who are present 
here today. I want to thank you, Chair Durbin and Senator 
Duckworth for your support and your gracious introduction 
today. I also want to thank President Biden for nominating me 
to serve on the District Court for the Northern District of 
Illinois. That is a high point of my professional career.
    I would not be here today if it were not for my family, and 
first and foremost, I want to thank my parents. My dad, Nelson, 
who's watching in Wisconsin. My mother, Marlene, who is 
deceased a couple of years back. They raised us with love, 
guidance, a tad bit of discipline, and a lot of inspiration for 
their careers of public service. I really appreciate them. I 
love them.
    I have many other friends and family members who are 
watching from around the country, including my brothers, Casey 
and Pat, and my sister Carol, and many others, and their loving 
support has lifted me up here today.
    I want to introduce you to the family members who are here 
with me. Beginning with my wife and my 5-year-old daughter, 
Lola, who has a tremendous amount of energy. They are the 
center of my world. I love them a lot. I wouldn't be here 
without them.
    I'm also very honored and blessed to have with me my older 
brother, Steve, my sister-in-law, Kathy, my niece, Danielle, my 
nephew, Ted, and my good friend, Mike Parham, who's joining us 
here from Seattle. I can't tell them how much it means to me 
that they're here with me today.
    And in closing, I want to thank a number of the people that 
helped me develop into the sort of judge I am here today. 
First, there would be Judge Ann Claire Williams. I had the 
honor to serve as her law clerk for a couple of years, and she 
is a phenomenal person and an excellent role model, a 
tremendous judge, and I really thank her.
    I thank my former partners and colleagues at the firm of 
Miner, Barnhill & Galland, who taught me how to practice law 
ethically and with excellence.
    I also want to thank the current and former magistrate 
judges and the district judges on the Northern District of 
Illinois. They're fantastic colleagues and friends and they've 
provided so much support to me, I can't even tell you about 
that.
    And then, my chamber staff, past and present, they make it 
possible for me to do what I do.
    And finally, I want to thank my schools, Northwestern Law 
School and Michigan State. I send my prayers and my heart to 
the victims of that terrible, horrific shooting that took place 
on that campus. Thank you, Senators.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge. We join you in that 
expression relative to the Michigan State family and victims. 
Judge Gaston.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIAN F. GASTON, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED 
 STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    Judge Gaston. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you, Chair 
Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and this esteemed Committee, 
with special thanks to my home State Senators, Senators Padilla 
and Feinstein, and added gratitude for Senator Padilla's warm 
introduction this morning. I'd also like to thank President 
Biden for this nomination. It is an honor simply to be here.
    I am profoundly grateful for my family. To my parents and 
stepparents, my daughter, my brother, Fred, my nephews and 
nieces, and my in-laws. The world is a better and more 
interesting place for having each of you in it. Thanks to all 
of those who have lifted me up in prayer, including my church 
family at St. Paul's Cathedral in San Diego, my mother, and her 
congregation, my in-laws, Dean and Donna, my friend, Talisha, 
and my cousin, Libby.
    O. Henry once wrote, ``No friendship is an accident.'' To 
the friends who are with me today and those who are watching 
from home, including my magnificent law school classmates, 
thank you for your deliberateness in being in my life, for 
putting in the work over the years, even though we've all been 
busy. You are brilliant, loyal, and kind.
    And to my court colleagues, the judges, attorneys, clerks, 
court reporters, and bailiffs, who have been part of my daily 
life for almost three decades, especially my clerk, Abraham, 
and my bailiff, Deputy Dart. The rule of law is essential to 
our American way of life. One of the ways we effectuate the 
rule of law is to act at all times with professionalism and 
respect for the public we serve. Thank you for your integrity, 
your wisdom, and your humanity.
    Finally, I offer my deepest gratitude to my husband David, 
whose thoughtfulness, in every sense of that word, inspires me 
every day to be a better human being. I welcome the Committee's 
questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge Gaston. Judge Hsu.

  STATEMENT OF HON. WESLEY L. HSU, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED 
  STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    Judge Hsu. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 
Graham, and distinguished Members of the Committee for your 
time and consideration. I want to thank President Biden for the 
nomination, Senator Padilla for his recommendation and his kind 
words this morning, and Senator Feinstein for her support and 
her service to the Nation.
    I would welcome with humility and honor the opportunity to 
once again serve the Central District of California and my 
country, this time as a United States District Judge.
    I would first like to acknowledge my parents, who came to 
the U.S. on $100 per month scholarships to Kansas State 
University. That one of their children is here before you shows 
the American dream is alive and well. My parents could not be 
here today, but I know they are watching from home, and I want 
them to know that I love them dearly, and I thank them.
    I also want to thank my sister, her husband, and their 
children for being in my life.
    And I want to thank my professional family, the late Judge 
Mariana R. Pfaelzer, for whom I clerked, my court clerk, Matt 
Close, my former colleagues at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and 
especially Wayne Barsky, my former colleagues from my time at 
the U.S. Attorney's Office, and my current colleagues on the 
Los Angeles Superior Court, especially my colleagues and court 
staff in the East District.
    I want to thank the people supporting me here today, Joel 
Wattenbarger and Ben Hemmens, who have been close friends for 
more than three decades. Steve Andrews, who I've known nearly 
as long, and Professors Mary Sarotte and Mark Shiefsky, who my 
wife and I have known for many years.
    And finally, I want to thank my family. With me here today 
is my wife of more than 20 years, who serves the public in a 
different capacity, expanding humankind's scientific knowledge, 
and our two daughters. Fortunately for me, it is currently the 
offseason in both of their sports, so they were willing to 
come. I love my family and cannot imagine life without their 
continued love and support. It is the greatest professional 
honor of my life to be here today, and I welcome your 
questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge Hsu. Judge Hunt.

STATEMENT OF HON. LASHONDA A. HUNT, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED 
  STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

    Judge Hunt. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, 
and Members of the Committee, for considering my nomination. I 
am grateful to Senators Durbin and Duckworth for recommending 
me for this incredible opportunity, and to President Biden for 
nominating me. Senator Durbin, thank you for the kind 
introductory remarks.
    It took a village to get me to this place. Several of them 
are here with me today. My mother, Rachel Dykes, stepped out on 
faith as a young woman and moved from a farm in Mississippi to 
the big City of Chicago to build a new life. She raised three 
children on her own and impressed upon us the value of 
education and hard work. My siblings, Lynn and Lance, are 
watching today from their homes. Our mom is my inspiration.
    My three beautiful and very busy children, Nia, Jeremy, and 
Brian, are here. Nia is in nursing school, Jeremy is in 
graduate school, and Brian is a college freshman. They are my 
heart and my joy. Their father, Brian, is here, too. I could 
not have accomplished all that I have as a working mother 
without him. His friendship and devotion to family has been a 
blessing.
    Other extended family and friends in the room are my 
godsister, Casey, Nia's boyfriend, Derek, my cousin, Hayley, 
and my cousin, Kelly, and her wife, Becky. And then, 
representing my entire college posse, I have Connie, and her 
husband, Shannon, Carmen, and her husband, Mark, Kim, and her 
husband, Kiev.
    I have so many loved ones viewing remotely. My aunt, 
Dorothy, my niece, Demetria, my cousin, Calvin, and my Delta 
Sigs from Essence. Time will not permit me to name everyone, 
but please know that I thank you all for pushing me forward and 
praying me through. And I give special thanks to my amazing 
chamber staff, my bankruptcy judge colleagues, and our court 
personnel.
    Finally, I want to acknowledge the cloud of witnesses who 
are cheering me on from above. Especially my maternal 
grandmother, Melvina P. Hall, whose spirit of determination and 
resilience rests on me. My dear friend and guardian angel, 
Special Agent Dave Nardella, whose 25-year career in law 
enforcement and devotion to our country inspires me daily. And 
my district judge, Judge William Hibbler, who recognized and 
nurtured my dream to one day follow in his footsteps. Senators, 
I look forward to your questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge Hunt.
    Ms. Almadani.

   STATEMENT OF MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS 
   UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 
                           CALIFORNIA

    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Good morning. Thank you, Chair 
Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and distinguished Members of the 
Committee, for the warm welcome. Thank you, as well, to Senator 
Padilla for the very generous introduction, and to Senator 
Feinstein for her support of my nomination. I am grateful to 
President Biden for nominating me to serve as a Federal judge 
in my hometown of Los Angeles. It is the honor of a lifetime to 
be here today.
    My grandmother, Theresa Lopez, is not here, but I want to 
start by thanking her. Despite having only a third-grade 
education, she was very active in her community and was 
president of her senior citizen center in Northeast Los 
Angeles. She was my role model. She was smart, curious, had a 
great sense of humor, and a passion for life that motivated me 
at a young age to dream big.
    Fortunately, I am joined this morning by my parents, 
Salvador and Irma Ramirez. They came to this country more than 
50 years ago from Mexico with nothing more than determination 
and hope for a better future. They showed me and my sisters, by 
example, how to always work hard to be diligent and honest, to 
treat everyone with dignity and respect, and to appreciate and 
never take for granted the countless blessings this country has 
given us.
    Also with me is my best friend, my partner in life, my 
husband, Yasin Almadani. We met as Federal prosecutors trying 
cases, and together we formed a beautiful family. Our three 
young sons, including our 10-month-old son, are back home in 
Los Angeles with my amazing father- and mother-in-law, Farook 
and Seva Almadani. They are like parents to me, and I am beyond 
grateful to them, and my children, for their unconditional love 
and support.
    I also want to briefly thank my sisters, Cynthia Ramirez 
and Gina Ramirez, my brothers-in-law, my nephews, my niece, my 
Aunt Lethesia and Uncle Robert Howdecki, and my cousins, Lena 
Howdecki and Olivia Madrigal, for being an essential part of my 
life and for always supporting me professionally and 
personally.
    Finally, I would not be here today without the support and 
teachings of so many dear friends, mentors, colleagues, and 
classmates. I want to extend my deep, deep gratitude to them, 
as well. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. I look 
forward to your questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much Ms. Almadani.
    And I'll start with the 5-minute round here, by saying 
initially, Judge Hunt, Judge Hibbler was one of my first 
recommendations for the Federal bench. He's an extraordinary 
jurist, an extraordinary person, and I think it'd be a great 
positive experience to have served as his clerk. Can you give 
us your own shorthand version of the Hibbler philosophy on 
judging?
    Judge Hunt. Thank you for that question, Senator Durbin. 
Judge Hibbler was an amazing man who treated all of his law 
clerks like we were family. I think that if you ask anyone what 
they remember about him, it was that he was gracious and kind 
and humble. Very respectful. I was fortunate to sit under him 
and watch the way that he handled himself in the courtroom, 
that he handled himself at settlement conferences, and really 
how he treated the litigants who appeared before him.
    It says something about him that criminal defendants, whom 
he had sentenced, would write a letter thanking him afterwards 
because he treated them with such dignity and recognized their 
humanity. That is the primary lesson that I try to take with me 
every day since I have been on the bench as a bankruptcy judge.
    Chair Durbin. And that's the point I'm glad you raised, 
because I think it's so important. These are lifetime 
appointments. I think you all understand that. Which means that 
if you win the approval of the Senate, now that you've had the 
nomination of the President, there could be critics, and there 
will be, I'm sure. But this is your life's calling at this 
moment. And I've seen judges that have used that graciously, as 
Judge Hibbler did, and in my terms of practice, I've seen the 
opposite.
    Judge Cummings, you've seen a lot of courts and courtrooms, 
both as a litigator and as a judge. The demeanor of the judge 
is an important factor. Is it not?
    Judge Cummings. Yes, thank you for that question, Senator. 
I think the demeanor of a judge is incredibly important. Number 
one, in terms of treating everyone who comes into that 
courtroom with respect and dignity, and the parties, the 
attorneys, and with respect to the attorneys, expecting the 
best out of them, and showing that by your example of always 
remaining with a calm demeanor in a professional way and not 
letting your emotions run away with themselves.
    I think it's also very important for a judge to project 
humanity to everyone who comes before him or her. Whether it's 
in a naturalization ceremony, or it's in an arraignment, 
initial appearance in a criminal case, or whether it's in a 
settlement conference, it's very important for the judge to 
have a human connection with the litigants and the attorneys 
who appear in front of him or her.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Judge Gaston, what's been your 
experience?
    Judge Gaston. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I would echo the 
sentiments of Judge Cummings. I think that it can be easy for 
us to think of procedural due process as something as a dry 
academic exercise. But what experience shows us is that when 
people come to court and feel that they have truly been heard, 
they are willing to accept the outcome.
    People don't necessarily expect, in every case that they 
bring, to be successful in the outcome, but they do want 
fairness. They do want a chance to have their day in court. And 
I think that is fundamental to the rule of law.
    Chair Durbin. Judge Hsu, I would like your comments as 
well. But I certainly am struck by your parents' decision to 
come to America for the princely sum of $100 a month to go to 
college. If you would like to comment on your parents or your 
role as a judge, I'd appreciate it.
    Judge Hsu. I'm so grateful to them. I'll leave the judge 
question because I don't think I could answer it any better 
than Judge Cummings and Judge Gaston and Judge Hunt just did. I 
agree with you that demeanor is incredibly important. But I am 
so grateful for my parents that they, both of them 
independently, made that huge leap of faith coming to a country 
they knew nothing about, to start essentially a new life.
    I heard my father recently describe himself to someone as, 
``Just an ordinary guy,'' and I had to tell him, ``You are not 
an ordinary guy.'' He accomplished more, you know, at the age 
of nine than I can hope to accomplish in my lifetime.
    Chair Durbin. That's a great comment. Ms. Almadani, would 
you like to comment on the judges that you have had an 
experience in the courtroom with?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Thank you for that question, Senator 
Durbin. I've been very fortunate to appear before many 
different judges in the Central District of California, and in 
front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have found that 
those judges who listen to the party's arguments, who do their 
research, who come prepared, are the judges that we most 
appreciate.
    And so, unlike my fellow panelists, I have not served as a 
judge, I recognize that. If I am so honored as to be confirmed 
as a judge, that's the kind of judge that I would be. Someone 
who faithfully applies the law, who's open-minded, who listens 
to the arguments, and gives the parties an opportunity to be 
heard.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. Thank you very much. Judge Gaston, I 
believe you wrote a paper or an article, I don't know how to 
describe it, for the California Coalition on Sexual Offending 
regarding residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders. 
Is that correct?
    Judge Gaston. Yes, sir.
    Senator Graham. Okay. What is the California Coalition on 
Sexual Offending? What is that?
    Judge Gaston. Thank you for the question, Senator. The 
California Coalition on Sexual Offending is a 
multidisciplinary, nonprofit group that has as its goal the end 
of sexual assault.
    Senator Graham. Okay. What was the--in your paper, you 
suggested that limiting residency requirements of sex 
offenders, certain statutes can't live near schools and other 
things. You didn't agree with that. Is that correct?
    Judge Gaston. Thank you, again, for the question, Senator. 
I did co-author that position paper in which a group of us 
advocated--asked the legislature to take a look at several 
proposals, including residence restrictions. Our fear at that 
time, along with the fear of our allies in the victim rights 
community, and in law enforcement, was that in some cases, the 
residence restrictions were actually hindering public safety, 
which of course, was the opposite of what--of the goal.
    Senator Graham. How does it hinder public safety?
    Judge Gaston. In some instances, residence restrictions 
resulted in convicted sex offenders being homeless, which 
presents a huge challenge to law enforcement----
    Senator Graham. Well, the statutes don't deny people the 
bill to live at all. It just--restrictions around schools and 
places where children gather. Is that correct?
    Judge Gaston. Yes, sir.
    Senator Graham. I think here's a line: ``Difficult as it 
might be, laws that regulate where sex offenders may not live 
should be repealed or substantially modified in the interest of 
public safety.'' I still don't understand how that makes you 
homeless.
    Judge Gaston. Thank you for the question. I think it was an 
unintended consequence of some of these laws----
    Senator Graham. So, are you saying that if we don't allow 
sex offenders to live in areas where children gather, like 
schools, that we're creating a homeless problem?
    Judge Gaston. The position of that paper, again, an 
allyship with law enforcement and victim rights advocacy 
groups----
    Senator Graham. What law enforcement groups were pushing 
this?
    Judge Gaston. There's--Parole and Probation, in San Diego, 
were having a very difficult time, at that time, monitoring sex 
offenders, as they were required to do.
    Senator Graham. Why were they having a difficult time 
monitoring sex offenders?
    Judge Gaston. I think the way that they would put it, 
Senator, is that a homeless sex offender is more difficult to--
--
    Senator Graham. I don't buy the proposition that a 
legislative body saying registered sex offenders--are you okay 
with registering sex offenders?
    Judge Gaston. Pardon me?
    Senator Graham. Are you okay with a registry for sex 
offenders so the public knows what this person did?
    Judge Gaston. Sex offender registration is the law, 
Senator.
    Senator Graham. Are you okay with that?
    Judge Gaston. Whether or not I am or not, as a sitting 
judge----
    Senator Graham. Well, now, wait a minute, it's really 
important to me because the point I'm trying to make here is, 
the argument that the laws restricting where a registered sex 
offender can live leads to homelessness, makes zero sense to 
me.
    Judge Gaston. All right.
    Senator Graham. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Hirono.
    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my 
first question, I would like to congratulate all of the 
nominees. I think you are all well qualified, but, Mr. 
Chairman, I would like the record of this morning's hearing to 
reflect that when my colleague from Texas said that no Democrat 
was attending the first panel's hearing, I was sitting right 
here. I suggest he get his vision checked.
    My questions. These are two questions that I ask of every 
nominee on any of the Committees on which I sit. These are 
foundational questions to ensure the fitness of the nominee for 
the positions to which you have been nominated. And we'll just 
start with Judge Cummings and go right down the line.
    Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted 
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical 
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
    Judge Cummings. No, Senator.
    Judge Gaston. No, Senator.
    Judge Hsu. No, Senator.
    Judge Hunt. No, Senator.
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. No, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered 
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
    Judge Cummings. No, Senator.
    Judge Gaston. No, Senator.
    Judge Hsu. No, Senator.
    Judge Hunt. No, Senator.
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. No, Senator.
    Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, I yield the rest of my time. 
Congratulations to each of you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations 
to each of you. Judge Gaston, on December 6th, 2008, you 
wrote--you talked about this with Senator Graham, I'm going to 
quote: ``Children are not safer because registered sex 
offenders are prohibited from residing near schools, parks, 
daycare centers, and other places where children tend to 
gather,'' end quote. Did you write that?
    Judge Gaston. I co-wrote that article. Yes, sir.
    Senator Kennedy. When you wrote it, did you believe it?
    Judge Gaston. I did.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right, let's start back down on 
this end. Ms. Almadani, we've been--tell me about this doctrine 
of qualified immunity that we're discussing here in Congress 
and in the newspapers.
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Qualified 
immunity applies in 1983 cases, as well as Bivens actions, to 
law enforcement officers.
    Senator Kennedy. Right.
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani [continuing]. Unless there is a 
clearly established constitutional violation, they are subject 
to qualified immunity. They are immune.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you for that. Let's go to 
Judge Hunt. Judge, what is the standard--I'm sorry, I keep 
bumping my mic. What's the standard for granting a motion for 
summary judgment in Federal court?
    Judge Hunt. Thank you for the question, Senator. Summary 
judgment motions in Federal court are evaluated under Federal 
Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The question is whether there is a 
genuine issue of material fact that will require a trial. The 
moving party has the burden of proof of establishing that there 
is no genuine issue of material fact, and that judgment should 
be granted as a matter of law. If the moving party does not 
meet that burden, then summary judgment is denied and the case 
goes forward to trial.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. So, basically, it's just: Are the 
facts in dispute, and is law in your favor.
    Judge Hunt. That's probably a shorthand tour. But really, 
it's: Are there material facts in dispute. Because in my 
experience, there are often factual disputes, but the question 
is whether they are material----
    Senator Kennedy. Yes.
    Judge Hunt [continuing]. To the resolution of the issue.
    Senator Kennedy. Otherwise you wouldn't be in court.
    Judge Hunt. Exactly.
    Senator Kennedy. Judge Hsu, tell me about New York Times v. 
Sullivan.
    Judge Hsu. I believe that was a First Amendment case, Your 
Honor--I'm sorry, Senator, and about free speech. But in my 5 
years of being a judge and 25 years of practice, I haven't had 
to actually apply New York Times v. Sullivan.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge--well, we talked--I talked to 
Judge Gaston. Judge Cummings.
    Judge Cummings. Good afternoon, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Good afternoon to you, sir. Tell me the 
rule that the United States Supreme Court follows in deciding 
whether to overturn precedent?
    Judge Cummings. Thank you for that question, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. You're welcome.
    Judge Cummings. Deciding to overturn precedent, the court 
looks at a number of factors, including the soundness of the 
reasoning of the decision in question, the workability of the 
rule that it establishes in terms of how it is applied, 
developments that have taken place since the decision was 
issued, and they also look at reliance that parties and 
litigants have placed upon that decision in question.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Let me ask you--well, I'll start 
back here, again. What did the White House give you to prepare 
for today's hearing?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Senator, there were a number of 
meetings with the White House Counsel's office.
    Senator Kennedy. Did they give you any written materials to 
read?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. There were some written materials.
    Senator Kennedy. Tell me, what were those?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. There were materials that were 
already in the record. Questions and answers from prior 
hearings.
    Senator Kennedy. So they give you a list of questions and 
answers from prior hearings?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. An overview, I would say.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes. How many questions and answers did 
they give you?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. I'm not sure, Senator. Sitting here, 
I'm not sure exactly how many questions.
    Senator Kennedy. Was it more than 10?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Yes.
    Senator Kennedy. More than 50?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. I don't believe so.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. And whose questions were they?
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. They were Senators' questions.
    Senator Kennedy. Which ones?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. There were some of your questions, 
Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Were there?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. But I also watched many hearings, and 
so I----
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. That's a tribute to you, Senator.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Kennedy. I'm smiling.
    [Laughter.]
    Chair Durbin. Senator Padilla.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Hope that smile translates into 
a vote in short order. Judge Hsu, you've said that you have 
wanted to be a judge ever since you were a clerk. You've also 
said that you believe it is important for litigants to see and 
know that the bench reflects the community in which they 
preside. I, along with many of my fellow Senators on this 
Committee and throughout the Senate, believe that it's 
important for our Federal judiciary to better reflect and 
understand the America that it serves.
    Diversity on the bench helps improve public confidence in 
the judicial system and can lead to better decision-making 
overall. But I also believe that it's critical that we promote 
diversity not just in the bench itself, but also in the 
profession pipeline to the bench. Judges, too, should strive to 
help diversify the legal profession including in the area where 
they have the most direct control, the hiring of law clerks. 
These positions can be, without a doubt, and as you may have 
experienced yourself, pivotal credentials for young lawyers on 
their way to impactful legal careers.
    So, I'd like to ask each of you, all five of you, beginning 
with Judge Hsu, do you agree that the goal of diversifying the 
pool of judicial law clerks is a worthwhile one, and, if so, 
what steps would you take to ensure that clerkship 
opportunities are available to a diverse, in every sense of the 
word, pool of applicants?
    Judge Hsu. I agree with you, Senator. Thank you for the 
question. I agree with you that it is critically important to 
diversify the pool of law clerks. I agree with you that it is 
an important credential for young litigators to have.
    And I would seek to continue doing what I think I have been 
doing in my career, which is working with affinity bar 
organizations to make sure that qualified applicants are not 
taking themselves out of the applicant pool, by showing them 
that they can do it and that they should apply and that they 
should structure their career in law school so that they would 
be qualified and apply for clerkships.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. And to mix it up a little bit, 
we'll start with Ms. Ramirez and work our way back this way.
    Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Thank you for that question, Senator 
Padilla. I certainly benefited from clerking on the Ninth 
Circuit. It was an incredible experience, one that I draw from, 
every day. Diversity is critical in the law clerk pool, on the 
bench, in all different settings, because it reflects the--it 
provides more--promotes public confidence in the institution by 
showing that everyone has a place in different levels of 
government, in different places.
    And so, I would certainly promote doing outreach to many 
law schools to encourage a diverse pool of applicants to apply 
for clerkships. And I would note that there are many different 
kinds of diversity that are important. And so, I think that is 
something that would be very important to me if I am confirmed 
as a judge. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Hunt.
    Judge Hunt. Thank you for the question, Senator Padilla. I 
agree also, diversity is incredibly important, and I would 
expand that to personal and professional diversity. My law 
clerks help me considerably, and I have to give them credit for 
some of the better reasoned decisions that I make, because 
you're able to consider so many other perspectives and life 
experiences, it helps us as judges actually, to have law clerks 
from different backgrounds.
    I have had law student externs for the summer. That's one 
of the primary ways that I try to support that initiative, 
because I think so many law students don't know about the 
opportunity or don't think that they will qualify. And so, that 
is something that I will continue to do.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Gaston.
    Judge Gaston. Thank you. In addition to the comments of my 
esteemed colleagues here, I would only add that I think one way 
that we could encourage more diverse applicants, is by 
approaching schools that haven't been traditional sources of 
clerks. And so, that's something that I would like to look 
into.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Cummings.
    Judge Cummings. And thank you for your question, Senator. I 
just think back about how I became a law clerk. One of my law 
professors asked me what I was going to do after law school, 
and I said I didn't know. And he said, ``Well, why don't you be 
a law clerk? '' And I said, ``What's a law clerk? '' I was the 
first person in my family to graduate from law school, and I 
had no idea.
    And that gets to the point of, I think it's very important 
for us to go back to the law schools, to the incoming law 
students, and even to high schools, and just encourage young 
people, by our example, to say, tell, explain what we do. 
Explain that they can do it, and show them an example of 
someone who may have their background and their experience, and 
they can come forward and take these positions and actually try 
to become a law clerk.
    And so, that's one of the things I do, is speak to students 
and try to encourage other lawyers to get into the business of 
becoming a law clerk. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you, to each of you. 
Congratulations. I look forward to supporting your nominations. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. And thanks to 
this panel of nominees. Questions for the record will be due to 
the nominees by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, February 22nd. The record 
will likewise remain open until that time to submit letters and 
similar materials. And if there's nothing further to come 
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, we stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                            A P P E N D I X

              Additional Material Submitted for the Record

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]