[Senate Hearing 118-29, Part 4]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 4

              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

                             APRIL 18, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. J-118-2
                               __________

                                 PART 4
                               __________

         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
                    
55-359 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

                              ----------                              

                       APRIL 18, 2023, 10:03 A.M.

                    STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Illinois.......................................................     1
Graham, Hon. Lindsey O., a U.S. Senator from the State of South 
  Carolina.......................................................     2
Kennedy, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana, 
  introducing Darrel James Papillion, nominee to be United States 
  District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana...........     4

                              INTRODUCERS

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Maryland, introducing Hon. Brendan Abell Hurson, nominee to be 
  United States District Judge for the District of Maryland......     2
Cassidy, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana, 
  introducing Darrel James Papillion, nominee to be United States 
  District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana...........     4
Van Hollen, Hon. Chris, a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Maryland, introducing Hon. Brendan Abell Hurson, nominee to be 
  United States District Judge for the District of Maryland......     3

                       STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES

Witness List.....................................................    21
Daniel, Jeremy C., Nominee to serve as United States District 
  Judge for the Northern District of Illinois....................     6
    questionnaire and biographical information...................    22
Hurson, Hon. Brendan Abell, Nominee to serve as United States 
  District Judge for the District of Maryland....................     7
    questionnaire and biographical information...................    47
Papillion, Darrel James, Nominee to serve as United States 
  District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana...........     7
    questionnaire and biographical information...................   103

                               QUESTIONS

Questions submitted to Jeremy C. Daniel by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   148
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   152
    Senator Hirono...............................................   153
    Senator Lee..................................................   154
    Senator Hawley...............................................   157
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   163
    Senator Tillis...............................................   167
    Senator Blackburn............................................   175
Questions submitted to Hon. Brendan Abell Hurson by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   176
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   180
    Senator Hirono...............................................   181
    Senator Lee..................................................   182
    Senator Hawley...............................................   185
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   191
    Senator Tillis...............................................   195
    Senator Blackburn............................................   203
Questions submitted to Darrel James Papillion by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   205
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   209
    Senator Hirono...............................................   210
    Senator Lee..................................................   211
    Senator Hawley...............................................   214
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   220
    Senator Tillis...............................................   221

                                ANSWERS

Responses of Jeremy C. Daniel to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   229
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   238
    Senator Hirono...............................................   239
    Senator Lee..................................................   240
    Senator Hawley...............................................   248
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   266
    Senator Tillis...............................................   277
    Senator Blackburn............................................   284
Responses of Hon. Brendan Abell Hurson to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   286
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   296
    Senator Hirono...............................................   297
    Senator Lee..................................................   298
    Senator Hawley...............................................   306
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   327
    Senator Tillis...............................................   340
    Senator Blackburn............................................   347
Responses of Darrel James Papillion to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Graham........................................   352
    Senator Klobuchar............................................   361
    Senator Hirono...............................................   362
    Senator Lee..................................................   363
    Senator Hawley...............................................   371
    Senator Kennedy..............................................   394
    Senator Tillis...............................................   398

        LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. BRENDAN ABELL HURSON

Alliance for Justice (AFJ), April 17, 2023.......................   405

         LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO DARREL JAMES PAPILLION

Adler, Yvonne Sandoz, Ph.D., April 14, 2023......................   407
Alliance for Justice (AFJ), April 17, 2023.......................   408
Barrasso, Judy Y., April 11, 2023................................   410
Bienvenu, David F., April 10, 2023...............................   412
Boyle, Kim M., April 14, 2023....................................   413
Centola, Lawrence J., Jr., April 11, 2023........................   414
Centola, Lawrence J., III, April 10, 2023........................   415
Crichton, Hon. Scott J., April 12, 2023..........................   417
Dampf, Robert S., April 10, 2023.................................   419
Davidson, James J., III, April 10, 2023..........................   420
deLaup, S. Guy, April 12, 2023...................................   421
Galligan, Thomas C., Jr., April 17, 2023.........................   423
Genovese, Hon. James T., April 11, 2023..........................   424
Gibson, James H., April 10, 2023.................................   425
Hayes, Thomas M., III, April 14, 2023............................   426
Irwin, Barbara L., April 11 , 2023...............................   427
Jalenak, Jay M., Jr., April 10, 2023.............................   428
Kinchen, Brent E., April 10, 2023................................   429
Kraus, Rev. Leonard E., S.J., April 10, 2023.....................   430
Kutcher, Robert A., April 10, 2023...............................   431
Norwood, Colvin G. ``Woody,'' Jr., April 10, 2023................   432
Patterson, Michael A., April 11, 2023............................   434
Perry, John W., Jr., April 14, 2023..............................   435
Pipes, H. Minor, III, April 10, 2023.............................   436
Stanley, Richard C., April 11 , 2023.............................   437
Walters, Edward J., Jr., April 11, 2023..........................   438
Wheelis Lockridge, Lee Ann, April 11, 2023.......................   439
Yi, Rev. Paul, April 8, 2023.....................................   441

                MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submitted by Senator Hirono:
    Fechner, Holly, ``To understand why America's lead in tech 
      and innovation is eroding, look at China's investment in 
      women inventors,'' Fortune Magazine, April 18, 2023, op-ed 
      article....................................................   442

American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Jeremy C. Daniel...............................................   447
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Hon. Brendan Abell Hurson......................................   448
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal 
  Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of 
  Darrel James Papillion.........................................   449
Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, 
  introducing Jeremy C. Daniel, Nominee to be United States 
  District Judge for the Eastern District of Illinois, prepared 
  statement......................................................   450

 
              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 2023

                              United States Senate,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. 
Durbin, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Blumenthal, Padilla, 
Ossoff, Welch, Graham, Lee, Hawley, Kennedy, and Blackburn.
    Also present: Senators Cardin, Van Hollen, and Cassidy.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee will come to order. Today we will hear from three 
judicial nominees: Jeremy Daniel, nominated to the Northern 
District of Illinois; Judge Brendan Hurson, nominated to the 
District of Maryland; and Darrel Papillion, nominated to the 
Eastern District of Louisiana. Congratulations to the nominees, 
and their families.
    The nominees before us today have each received blue slips 
from both of their home State Senators, including Mr. 
Papillion, who has the support of both Senators Cassidy and 
Kennedy, both here today. I'd like to thank these Senators for 
working in good faith to identify nominees for vacancies in 
their States. The blue slip process has a long history, but 
there have been instances of success and failure in that 
process. We have an illustration of success today, and we're 
happy to see evidence of it at the Committee.
    There are many Members, Senator Graham, and his 
predecessor, Senator Grassley, have demonstrated that they can 
work with a White House of another faith to identify well-
qualified nominees who are acceptable to Members of both sides 
of the aisle. I might add, parenthetically, that during the 4 
years of President Trump, I was able to fill every vacancy by 
sitting down with the White House and negotiating, basically 
giving and taking, back and forth. And I believe excellent 
nominees came out as a result.
    We have several issues still pending before the Committee 
that I will not go into at this time. But I hope that I can 
urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to 
find common ground when it comes to these issues.
    Now, for today's panel, we have several Senators who've 
joined us for introductions, and I'm honored to be able to 
introduce the nominee from Illinois, Jeremy Daniel. But first, 
let me say to Senator Graham, welcome back from the Middle East 
and I'd give you an opportunity for opening remarks.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
        A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

    Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to be 
back. I think we're going to have a markup here fairly soon 
about a lot of bipartisan proposals regarding social media. 
Many of the Members here have worked together to find solutions 
to the problems that face America. So I look forward to working 
with you on that and see if we can start the process for the 
Congress as a whole.
    In terms of the blue slip process, we're trying very hard 
to be reasonable. We may not always get there in your mind, but 
we're trying really hard. I was in your shoes. I never 
entertained changing the blue slip process, and I hope that 
never happens. I did meet with the White House Counsel's 
office. I want to thank them for coming over and I had a very 
good, productive meeting.
    Chair Durbin. Good. Now we'll hear introductions of our 
nominees and beginning with Senator Cardin of Maryland who's 
introducing Judge Hurson.

 STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
   STATE OF MARYLAND, INTRODUCING HON. BRENDAN ABELL HURSON, 
NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
                            MARYLAND

    Senator Cardin. Well, Chairman Durbin, Senator Graham, 
Members of the Committee, it's a real pleasure to be back 
before the Judiciary Committee to introduce U.S. Magistrate 
Judge Brendan Hurson, who's been nominated by President Biden 
to serve on the District Court of Maryland.
    Senator Van Hollen and I have a process, like many of the 
Members of the Senate, we have a bipartisan professional 
committee that interviews all applicants that are interested in 
serving in our district court. We have many applications. I 
must tell you that Judge Hurson rose to the top as one of the 
most qualified individuals we could ever recommend for the 
District Court of Maryland. So, I'm very proud to recommend his 
nomination along with Senator Van Hollen. And I thank him for 
his continued public service.
    He lives in Baltimore, and I must tell you, he has devoted 
his entire professional career to serving the public, to 
strengthen our legal system, to strengthen our rule of law.
    Let me just give you a little bit of background about Judge 
Hurson. He received his undergraduate degree in 2000 from 
Providence College in Providence, Rhode Island, where he 
majored in public and community service studies, with a minor 
in Black studies.
    After college, he served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps in 
California as an advocate for the poor and marginalized 
communities in San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood. In 
2005, Judge Hurson graduated Order of the Coif from the 
University of Maryland School of Law, an outstanding school of 
law since I'm an alumni of that school also.
    After completing his judicial clerkship in 2007, Judge 
Hurson joined the Office of the Federal Public Defender in 
Baltimore, where he defended individuals charged with felony 
and misdemeanor offenses in Maryland's Federal court. He was 
named Senior Litigation Counsel in 2015.
    In 2017, Judge Hurson joined the Office of the Federal 
Public Defender for the United States Virgin Islands where he 
represented people charged with violating Federal and 
territorial laws on the islands of St. John, St. Thomas, and 
St. Croix.
    In 2018, he returned to the Public Defender's Office in 
Baltimore, and in February 2022, Judge Hurson was sworn in as 
United States magistrate judge and sits in Baltimore. As a 
sitting magistrate judge, Judge Hurson presides over both 
preliminary criminal proceedings and civil lawsuits by consent 
of the parties and also coordinates the District of Maryland 
Social Security Appeals docket. Judge Hurson therefore brings 
remarkable experience to this position, having served as a 
Federal Public Defender for a decade and a half, and now serves 
as a magistrate judge for over a year.
    Confirmed, he would continue to serve in the same court 
where he now sits as a magistrate judge and where he's 
practiced as a public defender for many years.
    I also want to acknowledge, as we all understand, that 
public service is a family commitment. I want to welcome many 
members of his family that are with us today, including his 
parents, his wife, Abby, his daughter, Mary, his son, Patrick, 
and other extended families that are here today. We thank them 
for understanding the sacrifice that Judge Hurson makes for his 
public service.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cardin. We'll now recognize 
Senator Van Hollen, who has just walked through the door. A 
dramatic entrance, as usual.
    [Laughter.]
    Chair Durbin. Senator Van Hollen.

  STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
   STATE OF MARYLAND, INTRODUCING HON. BRENDAN ABELL HURSON, 
NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
                            MARYLAND

    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Graham, Members of the Committee. I know that Senator Cardin 
has covered Judge Hurson's record well--Magistrate Judge 
Hurson's record well. So, I do want to associate myself with 
all the remarks he made. And I want to just say I strongly 
encourage this Committee to support the President's nomination.
    In Judge Hurson, we have somebody whose peers have 
repeatedly described as somebody who's deeply committed to 
ensuring that everybody who comes before him in the courtroom 
gets a just and fair hearing. And if you look at his record, 
both as a magistrate judge and his previous record as a public 
defender, you see that very clearly. In addition to the service 
he's provided in many other forums.
    Just to give you an idea of what his colleagues have 
described him as, a, quote, ``fountain of empathy, a fountain 
of knowledge, and a thoroughly good person devoted to 
Baltimore.'' In this case, he will be devoted to the people of 
Maryland, and of the United States.
    I just want to say to him, and his family, who I understand 
have been introduced, congratulations on your nominations and I 
fully second Senator Cardin's statement and his endorsement. I 
urge the Committee to act quickly to support the President's 
nomination.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. I'll now 
recognize Senator Cassidy to introduce Mr. Papillion.

 STATEMENT OF HON. BILL CASSIDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE 
OF LOUISIANA, INTRODUCING DARREL JAMES PAPILLION, NOMINEE TO BE 
   UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 
                           LOUISIANA

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to 
introduce Darrel Papillion to the Committee today and to 
recommend him for appointment to the Eastern District of 
Louisiana. Darrel is an accomplished lawyer, a Louisiana 
native, a fellow LSU Tiger, and will be an excellent Federal 
judge.
    I also welcome Mr. Papillion's family, here to support him. 
He's joined by his children, Jude, Anna, Liam, and Juliana, his 
wife, Lauren, and his sister, Kimberly. And his law partners, 
J. Cullens and Abboud Thomas are also here.
    You know, I'm not an attorney. So, way back when I said I'm 
not going to try and be one--no matter if I slept in a Holiday 
Inn. And so, what I do is, I have attorneys, and they go around 
and ask their fellow attorneys, their peers, who is good?
    So, this is what you hear about Darrel: intelligent, 
caring, hardworking, experienced, honest, fair-minded, knows 
the law. It's clear to me, and to everyone that my team spoke 
to, that Darrel has the experience and temperament to be an 
outstanding Federal judge. His knowledge of the law and his 
thoughtful approach to the law was on display during his time 
as the president of the Louisiana State Bar Association, and as 
a fellow for the American College for Trial Lawyers. This 
college is a group of top lawyers well represented by both 
sides of the aisle and who are known for being selected for 
their temperament and legal expertise.
    I'm confident that Mr. Papillion's commitment to fairness 
to all who may come before him, and to the law, will become 
clear to the Committee during this hearing. I look forward to 
his approval by the panel, and by the entire Senate. Thank you, 
Mr. Chair. And with that, I yield.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Cassidy. And Senator Kennedy, 
you'll be recognized. Though I might say to my colleagues, I 
know you have a busy schedule if you have to leave, but thank 
you for coming, joining us today. Senator Kennedy.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 
STATE OF LOUISIANA, INTRODUCING DARREL JAMES PAPILLION, NOMINEE 
TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 
                           LOUISIANA

    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have watched, 
observed Mr. Papillion for years, really decades. We've both 
been around a while, both in his community and in our courts. 
He's a former president of our State bar association. He has 
tried, I think, 33 cases in State court and Federal court to 
verdict. He's been for the longest time, he was a professor, an 
adjunct professor at LSU Law School in Baton Rouge.
    I'm pretty sure--I haven't looked it up--but I'm pretty 
sure Darrel is a Democrat. I say that because President Biden 
nominated him. And, I mention it only because I have gotten so 
many letters in support of Mr. Papillion from Republican public 
officials, including most Republican members of our Louisiana 
Supreme Court, and this is only a portion of them [holds up a 
bundle of papers]. The real list of letters that I've gotten in 
support, you could--you could stand on them and paint the 
ceiling. That's not much of an exaggeration.
    Darrel is not a politician. I don't even know if he's ever 
made any campaign contributions.
    Senator Graham. That's terrible.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Kennedy. He's not an activist. He's a lawyer. He 
understands the magistery, the complexity, the nuances, the 
utility, the beauty of the law. In every community of any size 
in America, there are always two, maybe three lawyers that I 
call lawyers' lawyers. These are lawyers, they're not 
necessarily the ones in the paper every day, and they're not 
necessarily the loudest, but these are the lawyers that other 
lawyers hire if the other lawyers need a lawyer.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Kennedy. And they're never more than two or three. 
And Darrel's one of those lawyers. I mean, he's one of those 
lawyers that if you're a lawyer and you need a lawyer, it 
doesn't matter what it's for, you're going to call him and say, 
``What do you think?'' So, I'm going to support him. Have been 
supporting him. I hope you will, too. He's a real lawyer's 
lawyer.
    Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Kennedy. And I want to 
personally thank you because I nudged from time to time and 
urged that you try to find some common ground with the White 
House. And, you and Senator Cassidy have done an extraordinary 
job of reaching that goal. So, thank you for your leadership in 
that regard.
    Senator Kennedy. I like your use of that word, ``nudge,'' 
Mr. Chairman.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Kennedy. Very artful.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Thanks to all the introducers.
    I'd like to introduce Jeremy Daniel. He's been nominated to 
the Northern District of Illinois. A native Chicagoan, Mr. 
Daniel received his bachelor's degree from Illinois Wesleyan 
University, which is in the Bloomington-Normal area. His law 
degree, from Loyola University School of Law.
    He's served his country in more ways than one. As an 
undergraduate student, he served in the Marine Corps as a 
reservist. After he graduated, he served as a Marine captain 
and completed tours in Japan and South Korea. Following law 
school, Mr. Daniel worked in private practice on intellectual 
property cases for a number of years before clerking for U.S. 
Judge Virginia Kendall for the Northern District.
    Since 2014, Mr. Daniel has served as an Assistant U.S. 
Attorney in the Northern District. As an Assistant U.S. 
Attorney, he has prosecuted a wide range of Federal crimes: 
violations of drug and firearm laws, gang investigations, and 
financial crimes.
    Since 2019, Mr. Daniel has served as Deputy Chief of 
Narcotics and Money Laundering. In addition to investigating 
and prosecuting his own cases, he also supervises other 
attorneys in that section. He has a wealth of courtroom 
experience and a career that has been characterized by public 
service.
    I want to welcome him, and his family, here today. I had a 
chance to meet him, and I look forward to hearing from Mr. 
Daniel.
    I also want to take a moment to thank the judicial 
screening committee that Senator Duckworth and I established to 
review candidates for these judgeships. Chaired by former U.S. 
Federal Judge David Coar, the committee has done outstanding 
work, and they thought very highly of Mr. Daniel.
    Senator Duckworth couldn't join us today, but believe me, 
she's totally supportive of Mr. Daniel, and I'll have her 
statement entered into the record.
    [The prepared statement of Senator Duckworth appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Chair Durbin. Now, I ask the three nominees if they would 
please approach the table for their testimony before the 
Committee. Please remain standing for just a moment.
    [Witnesses are sworn in.]
    Chair Durbin. Let the record indicate that all three have 
answered in the affirmative, which spares us some real 
headaches. So, Mr. Daniel, I'm going to let you kick it off. 
Please proceed.

   STATEMENT OF JEREMY C. DANIEL, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED 
  STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

    Mr. Daniel. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, 
and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to appear 
before you today. I would like to thank you, Senator Durbin, as 
well as Senator Duckworth, for recommending me to the 
President. I would like to thank President Biden for this 
nomination. I am humbled and honored by it.
    I would like to introduce the members of my family here 
with me today, starting with my wife, Silver, and my three 
daughters. I thank them for their love, and support, and for 
the joy that they bring me every day. I would also like to 
introduce my Aunt Phyllis. Throughout my life, she's been a 
pillar of support for me. She may not know it, but she's here 
today as a mother figure, to both me and my wife.
    I'd be remiss if I didn't mention my mother and my mother-
in-law. Neither could be here today. We lost my mother to 
pancreatic cancer in November of 2021, and my mother-in-law to 
colon cancer 3 months later. Our mothers worked hard to provide 
for, and raise, their families. My mother, as a single mother 
and a banquet waitress, raising five children on Chicago's West 
Side, and my mother-in-law, a nurse who immigrated to the 
United States from Trinidad. I'm forever thankful for their 
tireless efforts in raising us.
    Finally, I would like to thank those family members, 
friends, judges, mentors, colleagues, and staff through the 
years, who have supported me in some form or another. I only 
hope that they have benefited as much as I have from our 
interactions. Senators, I welcome your questions, and thank 
you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Daniel. Judge 
Hurson.

  STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDAN ABELL HURSON, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS 
   UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

    Judge Hurson. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member 
Graham, and all the Members of the Committee, for allowing me 
to appear before you this morning. I want to first thank 
President Biden for the trust he has placed in me. I'd also 
like to thank my home State Senators, Senator Ben Cardin, 
Senator Chris Van Hollen, for supporting my nomination, and for 
their kind words today.
    I'd like to thank my many amazing former colleagues, 
particularly those at the Federal Public Defender in Maryland, 
and in the United States Virgin Islands, as well as my current 
colleagues on the United States District Court for the District 
of Maryland. And, I'd particularly like to recognize my 
chambers staff and my law clerks.
    I'd like to acknowledge the Honorable Margaret B. Seymour, 
and her career law clerk, Deborah Morgan. They provided stellar 
role models for me and for dozens of other law clerks who had 
the privilege to serve in Judge Seymour's chambers. To my 
friends in Baltimore and beyond, I want to thank you for all 
you have given me.
    I'm also blessed to come from a very large family, some of 
whom are here today. Others are watching at home. I wish I had 
the time to list all my siblings, my in-laws, my nieces, 
nephews, aunts, and uncles by name, but I don't. But please 
know that I love each of you, and I wouldn't be here today 
without you.
    I would like to personally acknowledge my amazing in-laws, 
Mike and Martha, who are watching from home. I'm also blessed 
to have my parents here, Dan and Meg. I credit my parents with 
inspiring me to pursue what has been a richly rewarding career 
in public service. I'd also like to thank my beautiful 
children, who sit behind me, and made, what I'm sure was a very 
tough decision, to not go to school today, but to come here and 
sit with me. I love you both, and I'm very proud of you.
    And finally, I'd like to acknowledge my wife, Abby. Abby is 
my partner in service and in life. Her commitment to our family 
and to me, all while juggling her own career, makes it possible 
for me to sit here today. I love you, and I thank you so much 
for always being in my corner. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge Hurson. Mr. Papillion.

STATEMENT OF DARREL JAMES PAPILLION, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED 
  STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

    Mr. Papillion. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, 
Ranking Member Graham, Members of the Committee. I would like 
to express my sincere thanks to President Biden for nominating 
me, and I'm tremendously grateful to my home State Senators, 
John Kennedy and Bill Cassidy, for recommending me to the 
President, and for the kind words they've said today.
    I am deeply honored to have been nominated to serve my 
country as a United States district judge. With me today are my 
wife, Lauren, and four of our five children, all of whom are 
missing school: Jude is a college senior; Anna, a college 
sophomore; Liam, a sixth-grader; Juliana, a third-grader. Last 
but not least, hopefully, behaving for his grandparents, and 
watching from home, is our one-year-old, V.L.
    Also here with me today are my sister, Kimberly Charles, 
and my law partners and dear friends, J. Cullens and Abboud 
Thomas. With me in my heart are my late father, Francis 
Papillion, who inspired me to become a lawyer, and my late 
wife, Shirley. Their sacrifices, support, and example are a 
substantial factor in why I sit before you today. Also with me, 
in spirit and love, is my mother, Rita, who is watching from 
home, my in-laws, Warren and Arlene Byrd, Marita Cezar, and all 
the members of our family.
    Finally, I say, bonjour a la Louisiane, and good morning in 
Louisiana, to my mentor at Walters, and everyone who mentored 
me, and all of my colleagues at Walters, Papillion, Thomas, 
Cullens, my friends from the Federal and State bench and bar, 
and the entire legal community in my home State, and, most of 
all, my students at the LSU Law School. Senators, I'm happy to 
answer your questions.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. You wouldn't have 
reached this moment and be seated at this table had you not 
been able to check some important boxes in terms of training, 
education, life experience, seeking a position which is a 
lifetime appointment, which is rare under our Federal law. And, 
it certainly calls into question what kind of role models you 
may have in your mind.
    Each of you has appeared before many judges, over the 
course of your career, and undoubtedly drawn conclusions about 
those who were your favorites, and those who weren't, whether 
they ruled against you, or for you.
    So, starting with Mr. Papillion, you can name names if you 
wish, but in your mind, what is the role model of a Federal 
judge that you think about as you aspire to this position?
    Mr. Papillion. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. There are many 
judges, and I've had the opportunity in my career to be before 
many. I believe the universal theme is hard work, judges who 
are fair and honest, and who treat both sides equally and with 
respect. Who do their homework, who study the law, and 
essentially work to just decide cases based on the merits. And, 
that's what I would hope to do.
    Chair Durbin. Magistrate Hurson, you've been on both sides 
of the bench.
    Judge Hurson. I have, and I have, in my career, had the 
privilege of appearing before dozens of Federal judges, and 
many State judges, too. And, I will name a name: Judge Margaret 
Seymour, who I was blessed to clerk for in Columbia, South 
Carolina, has always been a role model for me. Her temperament, 
her commitment to the law, and the way that she made sure that 
every single person who came into her courtroom knew what was 
happening and why it was happening.
    And that's a lesson that I take to the bench every single 
day, that I'm privileged to serve as a magistrate judge in 
Maryland. And, if I were so fortunate as to be confirmed, I 
would take that to the district court bench as well.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you. Mr. Daniel.
    Mr. Daniel. Chair Durbin, I've seen many of the qualities 
in the judges, that my colleagues here on the panel have seen 
in their respective districts, on the bench in my district. I 
would like to add that one of the best qualities I've had in 
the judges I've seen and the judges I've appeared in front of, 
were in those instances where the judge ruled against me and 
leaving the courtroom with full respect and appreciation for 
the decision.
    I think it's imperative for judges to be impartial and to 
be willing to explain their positions, and in that, that's what 
we all ask of our legal system. And, I'd be remiss, not to 
mention Judge Kendall, whom I clerked for, and has helped me 
tremendously in patterning my career and my practice.
    Chair Durbin. I'm glad you mentioned Judge Kendall. She's, 
of course, a nominee that we were able to help and support 
through this Committee and was one of the early appointments 
when I was a Member of this Judiciary Committee. So, thank you 
for that. Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. Congratulations, to you all. A lot of nice 
things said about each of you, and I'm sure they're deserved. 
And to your families, congratulations. It's a very big deal.
    Mr. Daniel, what did you do in the Marines?
    Mr. Daniel. When I was enlisted in the Reserves, I was a 
motor vehicle operator. When I became an officer after 
graduation, I was a combat engineer officer, Ranking Member.
    Senator Graham. Excellent. So, you've been in the 
prosecution lane, U.S. Attorney's Office. Is that correct?
    Mr. Daniel. Correct.
    Senator Graham. So, what's your interaction in terms of the 
fentanyl problem in the country? Have you had much of a chance 
to deal with fentanyl cases?
    Mr. Daniel. I have, Senator. Back in 2014, I believe it 
was, I was assigned an investigation following a rash of 
overdose deaths in Chicago. That investigation turned into a 
year-long wire investigation, where we were able to identify 
the source of that fentanyl that resulted in the overdoses, and 
then charged the organization responsible for distributing it. 
By organization, the organization in the Chicago area.
    Senator Graham. So, during that--why do these drug groups, 
cartels, organizations, why do they put fentanyl in drugs 
without people knowing? What conclusion did you come to?
    Mr. Daniel. Senator, this investigation I'm referring to, 
in that investigation, we learned, for the first time, that it 
was being mixed locally.
    Senator Graham. Right.
    Mr. Daniel [continuing]. My understanding, based on that 
investigation, and from some of the testimony we received from 
witnesses and some of the defendants who were both users and 
distributors, were that the fentanyl was being added to 
increase the potency of the drugs. It's more profitable to 
dilute substances, and when they dilute, users may complain 
that the drugs are weak, in their words. And so, the fentanyl 
is added, oftentimes unknowingly--unknowing to the users, to 
increase the potency.
    Senator Graham. So, Secretary Mayorkas said, before the 
Committee, that he thought fentanyl problem in America is one 
of the greatest threats we face as a Nation. Do you agree with 
that?
    Mr. Daniel. I agree that fentanyl poses a risk to all who 
encounter it. I've had cases involving fentanyl-related deaths 
and it is very dangerous, Senator.
    Senator Graham. Okay. Do you agree with that, Mr. Hurson?
    Judge Hurson. I agree with my colleague that it is a 
significant issue that faces this country, and it's one that I 
see every day in my courtroom.
    Senator Graham. Yes. So, what kind of cases do you have 
involving fentanyl?
    Judge Hurson. Well, as a United States magistrate judge, we 
handle the preliminary proceedings in all criminal cases. And 
sitting in Baltimore, which is a city like many others in this 
country that faces a significant heroin and fentanyl problem, 
we do see a lot of drug and drug-related cases.
    Senator Graham. How would you describe it in terms of the 
scope of the problem for Baltimore? Is it at the top of the 
list, middle of the list?
    Judge Hurson. I'm not familiar with numbers nationwide, but 
I can say, anecdotally, it's a significant issue in our city, 
and it's one that when I am faced with cases presenting 
defendants charged with distribution of drugs, oftentimes they 
themselves are users of drugs. And, I can say, without any 
hesitation, that our pretrial services department works very 
hard to try to find treatment for those individuals. And I know 
firsthand, there are a large number of people in the city 
working very hard to address the problem, from the top to the 
bottom.
    Senator Graham. Where does most of the fentanyl come from 
in Baltimore? Do you know?
    Judge Hurson. I do not know. I know as much as anyone who 
reads the paper. I understand there are foreign sources. I hear 
from my colleague, there may be domestic sources.
    Senator Graham. Okay. But, would you understand why this 
Committee would want to do more, both of you, to deter fentanyl 
use and distribution? Does that make sense to you, given your 
interaction with the drug?
    Mr. Daniel. Thank you, Ranking Member Graham. I think--I 
can't speak for what the Committee would want to do, Ranking 
Member, but my office in Chicago, the U.S. Attorney's Office 
for the Northern District of Illinois, has identified fentanyl 
as a priority. And, since that case back in 2014, it's remained 
a priority.
    Senator Graham. Mr. Papillion, last question. There's a--on 
occasion, a district court judge will issue an order that 
affects the entire Nation. Under what circumstances do you 
think that's appropriate, and how would you handle that issue?
    Mr. Papillion. Thank you, Senator. National injunctions--
injunctions are governed by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. It's a very serious issue in the Fifth 
Circuit. The Fifth Circuit has held that district judges have 
the authority, because they are judges of the United States, to 
issue those. I can tell you that if faced with that, I would 
study it very carefully, follow the applicable precedents, and 
try to make the right decision.
    Because obviously, when one issues an injunction beyond the 
four corners of a case, that is of tremendous magnitude, and is 
to be treated very seriously. And, I would.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Padilla.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations, to 
the three of you, for the nominations, and I appreciate your 
participation in the hearing today. You know, the topic of 
judicial ethics is one that's top of mind right now, for me, I 
know for several of my colleagues, and, I think, for people 
across the country. And, I know I'm disturbed by the recent 
reports detailing potentially unethical, even potentially 
illegal, conduct at the highest levels of our judiciary. I 
mean, it should go without saying that judges at all levels 
should be held to strict and enforceable ethical standards.
    I have a question for you, Mr. Papillion. While you were 
serving as special master, you identified a potential conflict 
of interest and made the decision to recuse yourself from a 
matter. Why do you believe it's important that judges take the 
responsibility of recusing themselves when there's even just 
the potential for a conflict of interest?
    Mr. Papillion. Thank you, Senator. As a Federal judge, as a 
judge of any kind, but particularly in this context, there are 
canons that govern our conduct, even as nominees. And, the 
reason I believe for these canons is to promote confidence in 
our judiciary. And so, the public needs to understand that 
judges who will decide their cases are fair, impartial, and 
won't pick favorites of any kind on either side. And, that 
would be what I would do, if I were so fortunate as to be 
confirmed.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. I mean it's--I'm sure 
additional reasons, but confidence in the judiciary, confidence 
in outcomes, confidence in the system overall, is important.
    Another dynamic that this Committee has been prioritizing 
to help strengthen confidence in the judiciary is by advancing 
diversity. Not just diversity in ethnic or racial backgrounds, 
but in life experience, work, and professional experience of 
the nominees that are recommended to the White House, that are 
nominated by the White House, that are considered, and 
confirmed, by the Committee, and the Senate.
    But, I want to take this prioritization of diversity one 
step further. I mean, as we know, judges are not the only ones 
who work in courtrooms. Judges are assisted by a wide array of 
assistants, particularly law clerks. And, as I believe, each 
one of you can attest, serving as a law clerk can be pivotal. A 
good experience, a good assignment can be pivotal in a 
successful, longer-term career, whether it's in the public 
sector or the private sector.
    And so, I'd like to hear from each of you if you agree with 
my premise that improving diversity is part of improving the 
judiciary, and public confidence in the judiciary, and what you 
might do, if confirmed, to advance diversity in your courtroom. 
So, we'll start with Mr. Daniel.
    Mr. Daniel. Thank you, Senator. The first time I 
encountered the benefits of diversity was when I was an officer 
in the Marine Corps. We drew Marines from all over the country 
with varied experiences, and you'd be surprised at how 
wonderful it is to ask a group of people, ``Has anyone ever 
seen something like this?'' And having someone raise their hand 
because they just had a different life experience.
    So, I've valued diversity of all sorts since, and I think 
it's important. As--I was set on my current path as a extern 
for a judge in the Northern District of Illinois, and I was 
introduced to that externship through the ABA's Judicial Intern 
Opportunity Program. I later went on to clerk. And as far as 
implementation, I think you just have to be cognizant of where 
you're looking, because opportunity is often the touchstone of 
increasing diversity. Just making sure that you're identifying 
qualified candidates from all areas.
    Senator Padilla. Okay.
    Judge Hurson. Thank you very much. I agree that law clerk 
service is critically important. It was important to me in my 
career, and I wouldn't be where I was without my own law clerk, 
Nancy Dordal, who's actually sitting behind me. I agree with 
both of my colleagues, and I think it really starts with the 
judge and casting a wide net. Getting out in the community, 
meeting with law students, doing mock interviews with law 
students, trying to generate interest in the position, and 
keeping a wide net for diversity of all kinds: geographic, the 
school that you attended, your career ambitions. And that's 
something I've tried to do as a United States magistrate judge, 
and would continue to do, if I was blessed to become a district 
court judge.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you.
    Mr. Papillion. One of the great highlights of my career was 
to clerk for Justice Catherine Kimball of the Louisiana Supreme 
Court, and I know that diversity was important to her. What I 
would do, Senator, is I would work to find the best and the 
brightest law clerks that I could, and that would include, as 
my colleagues have said, casting a very wide net to get the 
best and the brightest people from every background possible.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you all, very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chair.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Senator Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, 
gentlemen.
    Mr. Papillion, tell me the definition of a ``motion in 
limine.''
    Mr. Papillion. A motion in limine, in some law books, it 
doesn't exist, Senator. But what it is is, it is a motion 
filed, in advance of trial, to get a ruling in limine, which 
means in advance of some issue that may come up in the trial, 
usually an evidentiary issue.
    Senator Kennedy. I thought you might know.
    Mr. Papillion. Thank you.
    Senator Kennedy. Judge Hurson, explain to me the various 
definitions that the U.S. Supreme Court has used to define a 
fundamental right?
    Judge Hurson. In Glucksberg, and even recently in Dobbs, 
the Supreme Court has really focused on two major issues. One, 
whether the right in question is deeply rooted in our history 
and tradition. And, the Court is also focused on whether it is 
implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. And, I also believe 
that in Glucksberg, they describe the need for the right to be 
clearly defined.
    Senator Kennedy. How does that relate to the discussion in 
Griswold of a penumbra?
    Judge Hurson. Well, obviously, Griswold, as you state, 
points out this concept of the penumbra, rights that are not 
explicitly enumerated, but that the Court has otherwise found. 
As a sitting magistrate judge, and if I was fortunate to become 
a district judge, I would, of course, follow the guidance of 
the Supreme Court, who has identified just a few relatively 
small number of those rights. Obviously, the right to privacy 
perhaps being the most well-known.
    Senator Kennedy. Well, can you have--what has the Supreme 
Court said about the existence of a fundamental right that is 
not part of our history and tradition? For example, when the 
Court delved into the Second Amendment, it was really--the 
opinions were almost written as if they were historians, as 
opposed to judges. But, part of our history and tradition was a 
fundamental part of their discussion. Does a right have to be 
part of our history and tradition to be fundamental?
    Judge Hurson. Well, I can say this, that in Heller, 
McDonald, and Bruen, that was the focus. That's what the Court 
looked at. Now, there are other cases throughout history that 
have recognized a few other rights, the right to marry, for 
example, and I can't speak to the specific methodology that was 
used, but I will say, at least in the Second Amendment context, 
that focus on history was critically important.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right. Let me move to Mr. 
Daniel. Can a police officer--well, let me try this another 
way. If I'm walking down the street and a police officer wants 
to stop and talk to me, can he just stop and talk to me for any 
reason?
    Mr. Daniel. Senator, he can seek your consent to stop and 
talk to you.
    Senator Kennedy. What if I don't consent?
    Mr. Daniel. If you don't consent, then the officer needs to 
have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been 
committed, will be committed, and be able to articulate that to 
justify the stop.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Then how come police officers can 
set up a roadblock and stop 500 people to see if they have 
liability insurance?
    Mr. Daniel. My understanding is that the Supreme Court has 
ruled that those types of stops, when generally applied, are 
conducive to good order and policing.
    Senator Kennedy. Why? They're still stops, aren't they?
    Mr. Daniel. Senator, in my 8\1/2\ years as a prosecutor, 
I've not had to litigate the adequacy----
    Senator Kennedy. I know. I'm just asking you what you 
think. I mean, isn't that pretty intrusive? What if I'm in a 
hurry to pick up my kid from school and I don't have time to 
wait for 10 minutes, and I don't want to wait anyway? Why? If a 
cop can't just stop me on the street, why can they stop me and 
check my insurance?
    Mr. Daniel. Senator, as far as my personal belief, I 
haven't encountered that.
    Senator Kennedy. I'm just asking you legally, why can they 
do that?
    Mr. Daniel. Again, I don't--I haven't encountered that 
issue. So, I don't have the research on that, Senator.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
    Chair Durbin. Senator Welch.
    Senator Welch. Thank you. Thank you all. It's really pretty 
nice to have these folks here with their families and the 
history, and I appreciate all of you introducing them, and 
acknowledging the big role that they played. A couple of you 
suggested it might be a burden for some of your kids to miss 
school. I think you might be fibbing on that, but it's good to 
have you, and congratulations on your nominations, and 
congratulations on all the public service that you've provided.
    Mr. Hurson, I was a public defender and then went into 
private practice, like you, Mr. Papillion. And just--sometimes 
there's folks in the public that get a little concerned about a 
public defender and make the connection that if you're assigned 
to a client who's done something that you obviously think is 
terrible, how is it you can do it? And, I've had to answer that 
question many times.
    You're sitting next to a prosecutor, and I guess you were a 
former prosecutor, as well. You feeling a little uncomfortable? 
You want to just give us an answer of how you contend with 
that?
    Judge Hurson. Well, first, I'm not feeling uncomfortable, 
at all. I'm very happy to be sitting between these two 
gentlemen and I, every day as a United States magistrate judge, 
sit on a court that has both former prosecutors and former 
public defenders, and I can say, we get along quite well. As 
for my former career as an advocate in the public defender's 
office, I, too, encountered that question quite a bit.
    But I'll tell you that the answer that I gave was always 
that my duty, my obligation was to uphold the Sixth Amendment, 
hold the government to their burden, and ensure that not just 
my clients' rights, but in that sense, everyone's rights were 
protected.
    Senator Welch. Right.
    Judge Hurson [continuing]. It also brought me in touch with 
all sorts of aspects of the criminal justice system from 
pretrial service officers, probation officers, corrections 
officers, the United States Marshals, and of course, 
prosecutors.
    And those relationships that I built during those days have 
helped me so much as a judge, which, as you know, is a very 
different role.
    Senator Welch. Right. Well, thank you. Mr. Daniel, I'm sure 
you had to work with a lot of public defenders when you were a 
prosecutor, and you're on the other side of it. You're 
prosecuting. Sometimes prosecutors go overboard, but most of 
the time they're upholding the public good, and law, and order. 
Maybe you could comment on your role in the criminal justice 
system, making certain that people get a fair trial.
    Mr. Daniel. Thank you, Senator. The criminal justice 
process begins with the investigative agencies and the 
prosecutor's office. And in the Northern District of Illinois, 
we make a point to make sure that we're thorough in our 
collection of evidence and that we identify individuals, and 
charges, as appropriate. We appreciate and understand that it 
is a significant thing to charge someone----
    Senator Welch. Right.
    Judge Hurson [continuing]. Federally. And so, we are very 
diligent and careful in our approach to prosecution.
    Senator Welch. I appreciate that because when you have that 
awesome power as a prosecutor, the quality I've admired, in the 
prosecutors I've watched, is restraint. They're really careful 
about the use of that authority. You seem to be reflecting 
that.
    Mr. Daniel. It's important, Senator. There's also an 
imperative to keep victims in mind, as well as the overall 
common good. At the end of the day, I think prosecutors, 
Federal defenders, all involved in the process, including 
judges, are just looking to get to a just result. Or, they 
should be.
    Senator Welch. Thank you. I just want to end with you, Mr. 
Papillion. You were a defense attorney for--insurance defense 
attorney, as I understand, for a while, and then you became a 
plaintiff's attorney. One of the challenges we have is getting 
access to the courts that are backlogged in many situations, so 
people who have claims can have them heard. Any thoughts on how 
to facilitate access to the courts for civil litigation?
    Mr. Papillion. Well, I think that one of the best ways is 
to have scheduling orders and have judges really focus on 
trying to move the cases in their particular court. The Eastern 
District of Louisiana, the court to which I've been nominated, 
does a fantastic job of that, and I would hope to be a part of 
it.
    Senator Welch. So, there's a big administrative role that 
the presiding judge has to play to push the attorneys along to 
get to an outcome?
    Mr. Papillion. Yes.
    Senator Welch. And, you're prepared from having served on 
both sides, plaintiff and defendant?
    Mr. Papillion. That's, I believe, absolutely my job, if I 
were so fortunate as to be confirmed, to really move cases to 
conclusion and give people their day in court.
    Senator Welch. Well, thank you, all, and congratulations on 
your nomination. Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Welch. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thanks to all of you for being here today. 
Judge--Mr. Papillion, let's start with you. Got ahead of myself 
there. Tell me about the Erie doctrine. What's your 
understanding of that doctrine?
    Mr. Papillion. Thank you, Senator. The Erie doctrine is a 
doctrine that when a Federal district court is sitting in 
diversity jurisdiction, it applies State substantive law and it 
applies the Federal procedural law, the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence.
    Senator Lee. What's worse, in your view, invalidating as 
unconstitutional a statute whose unconstitutionality is 
sketchy, or upholding a statute whose application is, in fact, 
unconstitutional?
    Mr. Papillion. That's a difficult question, Senator. 
Obviously, if a law is unconstitutional, it is inappropriate 
and is something that should--you know, going back to Marbury 
v. Madison in a different context obviously----
    Senator Lee. Let's look at it as applied challenge. It'll 
make it a little simpler.
    Mr. Papillion. Yes. Can you tell me what you're asking?
    Senator Lee. As applied challenge meaning, it's--you're not 
dealing with something that's facially unconstitutional, but 
what's worse in that circumstance? Upholding the application of 
a statute as to which it might be an unconstitutional 
application and is, or improperly holding something 
unconstitutional as applied when it's not. Is either one more 
defensible than the other?
    Mr. Papillion. I don't believe either is defensible. So, 
it's hard to--when things are indefensible, it's hard to rank 
them. So, I would say they're both wrong.
    Senator Lee. A few years ago, there was an executive order 
issued by Governor John Bel Edwards dealing with COVID in a 
lawsuit involving Pastor Tony Spell. The pastor argued, among 
other things, that he was protected by the First Amendment and 
that the law shouldn't apply, couldn't apply to his decision to 
hold church services.
    When you were asked about this at oral argument, you were 
reported to have said, quote, ``The law is not about one 
person, whether a pastor or a churchgoer. We're a nation and a 
state of laws.'' Would you make that same argument today? Or, 
was that--did you, in fact, make that argument?
    Mr. Papillion. That sounds like a familiar argument. I 
think I would argue a lot of things differently, I think, in 
that particular case. That was a very difficult and challenging 
case for the State of Louisiana, and for religious liberty, 
Senator.
    Senator Lee. Okay. You said that sounds like a familiar 
argument. Sounds like something you might have said, in other 
words?
    Mr. Papillion. Yes.
    Senator Lee. Why is that appropriate? I mean, the First 
Amendment is there almost entirely for people making the 
argument as just one person, as the challenger. The whole 
reason we even need it is because it's there to protect people 
in expressing unpopular beliefs, in believing unpopular things.
    So, I don't understand why you would think that was a good 
argument to make. The law isn't about one person. We're a 
Nation and a state of laws. I mean, that's the whole point is 
to, in some circumstances, penetrate the law to protect the 
individual. Is it not?
    Mr. Papillion. Senator, in that particular case, to add 
context, this was a case that the State of Louisiana brought 
against a man of faith during the pandemic----
    Senator Lee. Who just wanted to have church.
    Mr. Papillion. Yes.
    Senator Lee [continuing]. He wanted to have church 
services, and you prosecuted him for that.
    Mr. Papillion. And, there was an executive order issued by 
the governor at a time, as you're aware, when the Lukumi 
decision and the Jacobson v. Massachusetts decisions were not 
necessarily in that particular context, the most helpful tools 
for States, and my role----
    Senator Lee. Right. Not the most helpful tools because they 
went against the State's interests.
    Mr. Papillion. In some contexts. But, in other contexts, 
the Fifth Circuit, for example, used it in another way. And so, 
when States were forming their response on the ground, it would 
have been wonderful to have, for example, the benefit of Tandon 
v. Newsom, at the time that this prosecution was brought.
    Senator Lee. That part is concerning to me because it's the 
whole reason we've got them. It's the only reason we have them.
    Judge Hurson, what's the standard for diversity 
jurisdiction?
    Judge Hurson. In Federal court, the diversity 
jurisdiction--forgive me [turns on microphone], I pledged not 
to do that--in Federal court, the parties need to be from 
separate States and the amount of controversy needs to be 
$75,000 or more.
    Senator Lee. Thank you very much. I see my time's expired.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Lee.
    We're going to make an exception to our procedure because 
our colleague, Senator Blumenthal was injured last week, has 
returned to Washington to duty with a broken femur, and has 
asked for permission to ask questions from his office. Senator 
Blumenthal, are you on board?
    Senator Blumenthal. I am on board. And, thank you so much, 
Mr. Chairman, for accommodating me. I've been at a couple of 
other hearings this morning and really appreciate the 
opportunity to question the very qualified candidates and 
nominees for the court at a time when I think our public trust 
and credibility in the judiciary is more threatened than ever 
due to recent controversy involving the Supreme Court, and I 
thank the Chairman for committing to have hearings on a 
standard of accountability and ethics for the Supreme Court.
    I'd like to ask each of these nominees, what you will do to 
assure that trust and credibility in the judiciary is preserved 
and, in fact, enhanced, both in your private dealings and in 
the appearance of ethical standards in the way you conduct 
yourself?
    Chair Durbin. Would you like to direct that question to any 
particular nominee?
    Senator Blumenthal. To the entire panel. To each of the 
nominees.
    Chair Durbin. Mr. Papillion, why don't you start?
    Mr. Papillion. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. If I were so 
fortunate as to be confirmed to be a U.S. district judge, I 
would work every day to uphold the integrity of the judiciary. 
We have a strict code of ethics that I would follow, 
scrupulously, and I would try to conduct my dealings, in all 
ways, to comport with that, to inspire, and to promote 
confidence in the Federal judiciary, in the way that I would 
run my courtroom, the way that I would treat litigants, the way 
that I would deal with the world outside of court, as well. 
Thank you.
    Chair Durbin. Magistrate Hurson.
    Judge Hurson. Thank you. As a sitting magistrate judge, I 
already follow the code of ethics, the judicial canons, and I 
do agree that trust in the courts is very important. And every 
day that I do my job, I do my best to ensure that I follow all 
recusal requirements, and that I interact with the litigants 
and the public in a way that does nothing but engender trust. 
And, I agree with everything else that my colleague, Mr. 
Papillion, said.
    Chair Durbin. Mr. Daniel.
    Mr. Daniel. Thank you. I would, of course, follow the code 
of judicial ethics. I would conduct myself in a way that 
comports with the position, I think it's an important position 
in the Nation, and that the Nation--I think it's imperative 
that the Nation have trust in its courts, and it would be 
incumbent upon me to conduct myself in a manner that was beyond 
reproach in all respects.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, each of you, for your 
commitment to follow those high ethical standards. Not just the 
ethical standards that apply to all district court judges and 
all courts of appeal judges, but also a standard of integrity 
that comports with public trust and credibility, which, I 
think, is so very important at this point in our Nation's 
history. And, I think your testimony is very, very reassuring 
to me that the awareness of the importance of those standards 
will be with you when you are confirmed, as I hope you will be, 
to the United States district courts. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you Senator Blumenthal. Senator 
Blackburn.
    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations 
to each of you, and to your families. We're delighted that you 
all are here with us today.
    Mr. Papillion, I want to come to you and go back to this 
case with Pastor Spell. That is a thing that concerns me, 
because at the time, Governor Edwards thanked the protesters. 
So, it was okay for protesters to assemble in Louisiana, but 
not okay for people of faith to assemble?
    So, that is, in my opinion, and I would think, to you, that 
that would have been the unconstitutional part of this approach 
of going against Pastor Spell and ruling against Pastor Spell. 
So, what I'd like to hear from you is, why you would see this 
as not being that restriction on free speech? Why did you think 
that was acceptable, and what was the legal basis that you went 
to, for that decision?
    Mr. Papillion. Thank you, Senator. I'm not familiar with 
the part about the protesters, but I'm very familiar with the 
Spell case.
    Senator Blackburn. Well, it's a quote that I have in front 
of me: ``He thanked the protesters at the time and stated that 
they were appropriately expressing their concerns and 
exercising their First Amendment rights.''
    Mr. Papillion. All right. Again, it's just something--my 
role was in the Spell prosecution. But let me explain that, if 
I may. It is that in the very early stages of the pandemic, 
States were faced with the very difficult collision of the very 
important right to religious expression and the State's power 
to protect the public. And the law clearly protects religious 
liberty, but it also gave the State the power that it did.
    And, we later got guidance from the United States Supreme 
Court in some very important cases. And, I believe that, had 
those cases been decided earlier, the order that the governor 
wrote, which I didn't write, would likely have been written 
differently. And, I didn't choose to prosecute the pastor. But 
as a lawyer, I represented my client, the State of Louisiana.
    If I were to be confirmed as a United States district 
judge, I would very scrupulously follow the First Amendment and 
the tests that our Supreme Court and the U.S. Fifth Circuit 
have made very clear, that when a secular institution is 
treated more favorably than religion, strict scrutiny applies. 
And, the State needs to show that whatever remedy it wants to 
apply is narrowly tailored to achieve the result.
    And, we can't assume the worst, as the courts have said, 
when people go to church, and the best, when they go someplace 
else, like work or the mall. And that is today, I think, a very 
clear principle of law that I would follow as a judge.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Well, I will tell you, that's the 
thing that really concerns me, is the way that--I appreciate 
your explanation, but the free exercise of religion is very 
important to Tennesseans. It's important to the religious 
organizations that call Nashville, Tennessee, home. And, I'm 
sure you're aware that there are many.
    And, to have a case where it seems there is a subjective 
opinion that allows one type place of gathering, allows another 
type place of gathering, but disadvantages and disallows the 
exercise of religion, that causes tremendous concern. It seems 
like an inconsistency of the approach. And, I've been--as I've 
reviewed your record, have been concerned about that.
    My time has just about expired. Mr. Hurson, I'm going to 
come to you, and Mr. Daniel, with a written question pertaining 
to your judicial philosophy, and your approach on some issues. 
I was concerned, Mr. Hurson, of the remarks you made to Senator 
Graham on fentanyl, and the awareness of fentanyl, and the 
impact that has on our community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. And thank you, 
to the nominees. Senator Welch, did you have any follow-up 
questions?
    Thank you, very much, for being here this morning, and the 
process will continue from this point, and you may receive 
written questions in a few days. Prompt reply gives us an 
opportunity to move forward ourselves.
    I thank you all for being here, and especially thank your 
family and friends for the sacrifice of joining you and 
supporting you. And we look forward to pursuing your 
nominations to a satisfactory conclusion, as quickly as 
possible. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee stands 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:05 a.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]