[Senate Hearing 118-29, Part 8]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 8
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
JULY 26, 2023
----------
Serial No. J-118-2
----------
PART 8
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENT
S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 8
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 26, 2023
__________
Serial No. J-118-2
__________
PART 8
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-363 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
----------
JULY 26, 2023, 10:03 A.M.
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Coons, Hon. Christopher A., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware....................................................... 1
Graham, Hon. Lindsey O., a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 1
INTRODUCERS
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan,
introducing Brandy R. McMillion, Nominee to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan............ 2
Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania, introducing Hon. Karoline Mehalchick, Nominee to
be United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania................................................... 3
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New
York, introducing Margaret M. Garnett, Nominee to be United
States District Judge for the Southern District of New York.... 5
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware, introducing Hon. Jennifer L. Hall, Nominee to be
United States District Judge for the District of Delaware...... 7
STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES
Witness List..................................................... 33
Garnett, Margaret M., Nominee to serve as United States District
Judge for the Southern District of New York.................... 10
questionnaire and biographical information................... 34
Hall, Hon. Jennifer L., Nominee to serve as United States
District Judge for the District of Delaware.................... 11
questionnaire and biographical information................... 87
Laroski, Joseph A., Jr., Nominee to serve as a Judge for the
United States Court of International Trade..................... 14
questionnaire and biographical information................... 133
McMillion, Brandy R., Nominee to serve as United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan..................... 12
questionnaire and biographical information................... 168
Mehalchick, Hon. Karoline, Nominee to serve as United States
District Judge for the Middle District of Pennsylvania......... 13
questionnaire and biographical information................... 201
Wang, Lisa W., Nominee to serve as a Judge for the United States
Court of International Trade................................... 15
questionnaire and biographical information................... 259
QUESTIONS
Questions submitted to Margaret M. Garnett by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 289
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 295
Senator Lee.................................................. 296
Senator Cruz................................................. 299
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 307
Senator Tillis............................................... 311
Questions submitted to Hon. Jennifer L. Hall by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 319
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 325
Senator Lee.................................................. 326
Senator Cruz................................................. 329
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 335
Senator Tillis............................................... 339
Questions submitted to Joseph A. Laroski, Jr., by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 347
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 352
Senator Lee.................................................. 353
Senator Tillis............................................... 355
Questions submitted to Brandy R. McMillion by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 357
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 363
Senator Lee.................................................. 364
Senator Cruz................................................. 367
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 374
Senator Tillis............................................... 378
Questions submitted to Hon. Karoline Mehalchick by:
Chair Durbin................................................. 386
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 387
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 394
Senator Lee.................................................. 395
Senator Cruz................................................. 398
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 405
Senator Tillis............................................... 409
Questions submitted to Lisa W. Wang by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 417
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 422
Senator Lee.................................................. 423
Senator Cruz................................................. 426
Senator Tillis............................................... 432
ANSWERS
Responses of Margaret M. Garnett to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 434
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 450
Senator Lee.................................................. 452
Senator Cruz................................................. 461
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 478
Senator Tillis............................................... 491
Responses of Hon. Jennifer L. Hall to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 499
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 513
Senator Lee.................................................. 514
Senator Cruz................................................. 521
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 536
Senator Tillis............................................... 548
Responses of Joseph A. Laroski, Jr., to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 555
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 568
Senator Lee.................................................. 570
Senator Tillis............................................... 577
Responses of Brandy R. McMillion to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 580
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 594
Senator Lee.................................................. 595
Senator Cruz................................................. 602
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 617
Senator Tillis............................................... 628
Responses of Hon. Karoline Mehalchick to questions submitted by:
Chair Durbin................................................. 635
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 637
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 654
Senator Lee.................................................. 656
Senator Cruz................................................. 663
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 677
Senator Tillis............................................... 687
Responses of Lisa W. Wang to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 694
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 706
Senator Lee.................................................. 707
Senator Cruz................................................. 713
Senator Tillis............................................... 726
LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO MARGARET M. GARNETT
Former prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York who worked with Ms. Garnett, July
24, 2023....................................................... 728
LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
Blewitt, Hon. Thomas M., retired, July 25, 2023.................. 730
Corbett, Hon. Trish, July 21, 2023............................... 731
Current and former law clerks for Judge Mehalchick, July 19, 2023 733
Durkin, Robert F., July 11, 2023................................. 736
Jones, Hon. John E., III, retired, July 7, 2023.................. 737
Lackawanna Bar Association, Scranton, Pennsylvania, July 25, 2023 739
Moschella, Matthew C., July 21, 2023............................. 741
Moyle, Douglas S., July 25, 2023................................. 743
Murray, Albert R., Jr., July 18, 2023............................ 744
Simcox, Elizabeth G., July 12, 2023.............................. 746
Vanaskie, Hon. Thomas I., retired, July 19, 2023................. 748
MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Margaret M. Garnett............................................ 750
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Hon. Jennifer L. Hall.......................................... 751
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Joseph A. Laroski, Jr.......................................... 752
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Brandy R. McMillion............................................ 753
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Hon. Karoline Mehalchick....................................... 754
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Lisa W. Wang................................................... 755
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
APPOINTMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 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. Christopher A.
Coons, presiding.
Present: Senators Coons [presiding], Blumenthal, Hirono,
Ossoff, Welch, Graham, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Kennedy, and
Blackburn.
Also present: Senators Stabenow, Casey, Schumer, and
Carper.
[Audio malfunction.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Coons [presiding]. This hearing will come to order.
Today we will hear from six nominees: Margaret Garnett,
nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York; Judge Jennifer Hall, nominated to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware; Brandy McMillion,
nominated for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan; Judge Karoline Mehalchick, nominated to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Joseph
Laroski, nominated to the U.S. Court of International Trade;
and, Lisa Wang, also nominated to the U.S. Court of
International Trade.
Congratulations to all of the nominees, and their families.
There are several Members who will be joining us this morning
for introductions. First, I will turn to Ranking Member Graham
for any opening remarks he would like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Graham. Thank you very much. And we hope Senator
Durbin has a full recovery. So, really not about the hearing,
but sort of a notice to the Committee. What's going on in the
House with the two IRS whistleblowers? If you've followed that?
It's getting to be incredibly unnerving about the accusations
they're making about how the Hunter Biden case was handled.
Mr. Garland said he had absolutely no influence. Mr. Weiss
has said that, you know, he made all the calls. Well,
something's not adding up because there's direct contradiction
of those scenarios.
So, I'll, when Senator Durbin gets back, I think it's very
important that we get the Attorney General before this
Committee to reconcile what happened.
And, one of our nominees today, I think Ms. Garnett,
praised Alexander Vindman for his remarkable courage to come
forward and kick-start the first impeachment inquiry about
President Trump. Well, I hope she feels the same way about
whistleblowers in general. So, just remember that statement,
and thank you very much. And I'm ready for the hearing to
start.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Graham. We have at least
four currently serving Senators who would like to be here to
provide introductions. We will take them as they come. I am
grateful to my colleagues from Michigan and Pennsylvania for
being here promptly at the beginning of the hearing. So, we
will begin with Senator Stabenow, who's here to introduce Ms.
McMillion.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, INTRODUCING BRANDY R.
MCMILLION, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you so much, Senator Coons.
And, I want to echo what Senator Graham said, about we wish
Senator Durbin a full recovery. But, it's nice to see you as
Acting Chair, Senator Coons, and Ranking Member Graham. Thanks
so much for holding the hearing today.
I'm really honored to be here to introduce Brandy
McMillion, President Biden's nominee to serve as the U.S.
district judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. She's here
today with her husband, Brian; her children, Brianna, Bryce,
and Braden; and, her aunt, Barbara Anderson. And I know other
family and friends that are so excited and supportive of her
efforts. So, welcome to everyone. We're so glad to have them
all join us.
It's fitting that Ms. McMillion is surrounded by her family
and friends today because the love and support of her family is
why she's sitting here. From the time she was a 6-year-old
growing up in Ohio, Ms. McMillion wanted to be a lawyer. It was
her dream and she never wavered from it. Her mom knew just how
much her little girl wanted to reach that goal. So, she did one
of the most difficult and selfless things a mom can do. She
sent her daughter off for a better future. And, from age 12 on,
Ms. McMillion was raised by her aunt, Barbara, in Michigan, and
so glad she's here today. And she is incredibly grateful to
these two women for helping her achieve her dreams.
Ms. McMillion earned engineering degrees at the University
of Michigan. And then, she earned her law degree from George
Washington University Law School, and practiced law in Chicago.
But, she didn't stay away from her adopted State for very long,
and we're so glad. Since 2015, she has served as an Assistant
U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
This last year, she became Chief of the Office's General
Crimes Unit, where she prosecutes offenses including bank
robberies, gun crimes, and Federal crimes against children. The
American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary unanimously rated Ms. McMillion as ``well
qualified.''
When she's not at work, she spends a lot of her time behind
the wheel driving her kids to all their sporting events and
other activities. We all know about that as parents. ``Mom's
CEO,'' she likes to say. She also is active in her community.
She's a very involved member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. She
also mentors moms through the organization, Warrior Women
Against Poverty, which aims to: ``Change lives one woman at a
time.'' Ms. McMillion knows, better than anyone, how the right
support at the right time can change a woman's life.
She is an outstanding nominee. And Senator Peters joins me
in wholeheartedly supporting her nomination. Thank you so much.
I would urge the Committee to vote yes on her nomination. Thank
you.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. We now have
Senator Casey to introduce Judge Mehalchick.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, INTRODUCING HON.
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYL-
VANIA
Senator Casey. Thank you, Senator Coons, and for serving as
Acting Chair, today. And, I want to thank Ranking Member
Graham, as well, for the opportunity to speak before the
Committee. I'm proud to have the privilege to introduce Judge
Karoline Mehalchick, who's the nominee to serve as the United
States district court judge for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.
First, I want to thank her family. Both of her children are
here, John and Anna. Her father, George, is here as well.
They've traveled here from Northeastern Pennsylvania, but the
same part of the State that I'm from, to be here today. And,
we're grateful for that, and we're grateful for their support
of her in her efforts to serve the people of the Middle
District of Pennsylvania. I also want to thank my Pennsylvania
colleague, Senator Fetterman, for his support and his
partnership on nominations like this, and for his support of
Judge Mehalchick.
Judge Mehalchick graduated from the Schreyer Honors College
at Penn State University before going on to Louisiana to attend
law school at Tulane University Law School. Fortunately for the
people of Northeastern Pennsylvania, Judge Mehalchick returned
home after graduation to serve as a law clerk for Judge Trish
Corbett on the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas. From
there, she worked as an associate and partner at the law firm
of Oliver, Price & Rhodes in the Middle District before
becoming a United States magistrate judge for the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. That
was in July of 2013.
She was appointed as chief United States magistrate judge
in January of 2021. That court, as the Members of the Committee
knows, deals with a whole range of issues that a district court
judge would deal with: criminal matters, issuing search
warrants, arrest warrants, accepting criminal complaints,
adjudicating civil cases, and so much else. Her work in the
Middle District has garnered accolades and recognition not only
across Pennsylvania, but indeed the Nation. In July of 2021,
she was appointed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
to a 3-year term on the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes
of Conduct.
Among the many awards and honors she has received in
Pennsylvania, she was recognized as a trailblazer by the
Pennsylvania Bar Association Commission on Women in the
Profession, in 2020. Her reputation and commitment to the
Middle District are further highlighted by numerous letters of
support she's received from across the community.
The former chief judge of the Middle District, Judge John
Jones, who is now the president of Dickinson College, wrote,
and I quote, ``The greatest appellation I can award to a fellow
jurist is that she is a judge's judge. This fits Judge
Mehalchick perfectly,'' unquote. Specifically, Judge Jones
spoke of Judge Mehalchick's, quote, ``exemplary character,''
unquote, her hard work, impressive temperament, and, quote,
``brilliant writing, and dedication to the rule of law.''
Ten of Judge Mehalchick's former law clerks wrote of her
strong mentorship, and how the judge would foster, quote,
``open discourse in chambers, welcoming our interpretation of
the law even when it differs from hers,'' unquote. This is a
sign of an excellent judge, one who's committed to hearing all
sides of an argument to ensure that her rulings are consistent
with the rule of law.
Her nomination also received support beyond the legal
community. For example, the president of the Greater Scranton
Chamber of Commerce, Bob Durkin, wrote, quote, ``the first-rate
judiciary of the Middle District''--speaking of the court
itself, and then highlighted how Judge Mehalchick, quote, ``has
been a critical player in this institution,'' unquote, speaking
of the court. And that her confirmation will further
strengthen, and bring honor to, that bench.
Judge Mehalchick has dedicated her career to the people of
the Middle District of Pennsylvania from her legal practice and
judicial service, to her community work with organizations like
St. Joseph's Center, and serving seniors, just to mention a
few.
Her experience, her temperament, her intellect, her
integrity, and her commitment to equal justice under the law
prepares her well to be an outstanding United States district
court judge. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide
the remarks on her behalf.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Casey and Senator
Stabenow. We understand how busy you both are. Thank you for
offering those introductions. You may leave at a time of your
choosing. My understanding is that Senator Schumer and Senator
Carper are on their way. Before they arrive, I will take the
opportunity to introduce two of our nominees to the Court of
International Trade.
Joseph Laroski, nominated to the Court of International
Trade, received his undergraduate degree from Georgetown, his
J.D. from Fordham, his LL.M. from Georgetown. After clerking
for the Court of International Trade, he began his legal career
in private practice specializing in international trade. He
served for 5 years in the Federal Government working in the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. International
Trade Commission, and the International Trade Administration.
He represented our Government in dispute settlements under
free trade agreements, advised Department of Commerce officials
on trade matters, and oversaw negotiations on international
trade agreements. Over the course of his career, Mr. Laroski
has handled matters before the International Trade Commission,
Court of International Trade, and the WTO. I look forward to
hearing more about Mr. Laroski's breadth of experience.
Congratulations to you and your family.
I'll also briefly introduce Assistant Secretary of
Commerce, Lisa Wang, also nominated to the Court of
International Trade. Ms. Wang is a graduate of Cornell
University, and Georgetown Law. After law school, Ms. Wang
entered into private practice here in DC as a trade associate.
She then spent 3 years as a senior import administration
officer at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, before joining the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative as assistant general
counsel.
Ms. Wang served in the Commerce Department's Office of the
Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement before completing another
stint in private practice. President Biden nominated Ms. Wang
to serve as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and
Compliance in 2021, and the full Senate confirmed her to that
position by voice vote.
Ms. Wang has extensive experience in international trade,
has dedicated her career to ensuring a level playing field for
American industry. And, I welcome her and her family, and look
forward to your testimony.
We will now turn to Senator Schumer, who is here to
introduce Ms. Garnett. Senator Schumer.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, INTRODUCING MARGARET
M. GARNETT, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking
Member, and the entire Committee. It's a pleasure always to
come back to the Senate Judiciary Committee where I spent 18
happy years. Tip O'Neill begged me to go on the Judiciary
Committee because in those days, no one wanted to go on. So, I
got two good Committees, Banking and Judiciary, back in 1981.
Anyway, I come before you today with great enthusiasm
because it's my honor to introduce an outstanding public
servant this morning, Margaret Garnett. A proud resident of
Brooklyn, a brilliant legal thinker, and someone whose entire
life story has been defined, quite literally, by public
service.
[Audio malfunction.]
Senator Schumer. I was proud to recommend Margaret to
President Biden to serve as a district judge for the Southern
District in New York, and I'm confident, by the end of this
hearing, you will understand why.
But first, a couple of guests: Margaret's wonderful family.
I understand that her husband, Seth Coppens, is here today.
Where are you, Seth? There you are.
[Laughter.]
Senator Schumer. And, I am told Margaret's parents, Frank
and Suzanne, as well as her siblings, are watching online. Hi,
Frank and Suzanne [waves to camera], I'm sure you're very
proud.
[Video malfunction.]
Senator Schumer. And, while her 11-year-old twins can't
make it today, they have a good excuse. They're off at camp.
Probably having a much better time than sitting here at the
hearing, so--if you're an 11-year-old, that is. For us, who
knows?
Now, the first thing to know about Margaret Garnett is that
her family is deeply rooted in public service: Not only were
her father and stepfather career army officers who retired with
the rank of colonel; not only was her grandfather a career
military officer for the Army and the Air Force; but, even her
great-grandfather answered the call to our country, serving the
military, and presiding as a judge, at the Nuremberg Tribunal
at the Mauthausen Concentration Camp after World War II. In
fact, eight consecutive generations of Margaret's family have
been West Point graduates. I think that deserves a round of
applause.
[Applause.]
Senator Schumer. And, by the way, to all West Point
graduates, I was up there with Senator Gillibrand last week.
They had terrible damage from the storm, and we're working very
quickly to repair those beautiful buildings in that vital
campus.
Now, in lockstep with the family tradition, Margaret's
devoted her legal career to strengthening our Nation,
preserving our democracy, and ensuring all Americans have
access to equal justice.
A graduate of Notre Dame, Yale, Columbia Law School,
Margaret had a brief stint in private practice before clerking
for the Honorable Gerard Lynch--and one of the nominees I've
made and put on the bench, and I'm most proud of, for the
Southern District of New York. And that's the very same court
now she's nominated at.
She had more than a decade of experience as a litigator in
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District, one of
the great U.S. Attorney's Offices in the country, where she
prosecuted cases ranging from murder, to robbery, to financial
fraud, and sex crimes--15 times she tried a case all the way to
a jury verdict while at the U.S. Attorney's Office, including
U.S. v. John Larson, at the time, the largest tax fraud case in
U.S. history.
At the Office of Attorney General, she oversaw a team of
150 prosecutors, 130 investigators that covered a wide range of
criminal matters. And, she was a steady force at the New York
City Department of Investigations, appointed by the mayor, to
lead the organization during the difficult times of the
pandemic. So, she's had excellent work on the prosecutorial
side of the law, but she's also a staunch defender of the
rights of the accused.
In 2020, she was instrumental in exonerating five
individuals wrongly convicted of murder. She once said that,
quote, ``Our job is to do justice, and that's a much broader
task and quest than racking up convictions.''
[Video malfunction.]
Senator Schumer. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this kind of
perspective, the ability to look at the bigger picture, the
ability to see all sides of a case without pre-judgment, is
essential for judges on the Federal bench. That's why our
courts need more people like Margaret Garnett. Someone
described by her colleagues not just as brilliant, but wise.
Not just determined, but kind. Not just an outstanding lawyer,
but a true friend, and defender of our system of justice. So,
again, I say, Margaret Garnett would be an outstanding addition
to the Southern District, and it's why I'm so glad--so glad to
support her nomination.
And, Mr. Chairman, just to let your august Committee know,
we will continue focusing on confirming even more outstanding
judicial nominees on the floor as we move forward. Under this
administration, the Senate has now confirmed 140 judges,
including 103 district judges, many with bipartisan support.
Many who have toppled longstanding barriers to the halls of
justice.
We've advanced more women nominees, 94 in total, more
nominees of color, more nominees from unique backgrounds, than
we've seen, in such a short period of time, just 2\1/2\ years.
We're really proud of this record, and I'm grateful for all the
Members, on both sides of the aisle, who have made it possible.
We'll continue confirming outstanding judicial nominees, like
Margaret, in the months and years to come. I thank the
Committee for its courtesy.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Senator Schumer. Thank you for
making time in your busy schedule to speak on behalf of a
talented and qualified New York nominee. I now turn to my
senior Senator from my home State of Delaware, Senator Carper,
to introduce Judge Hall.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE, INTRODUCING HON. JEN-
NIFER L. HALL, NOMINEE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had expected to
come in, coming in on a train today, to see a different
Chairman up here. And I understand Dick Durbin's tested
positive for COVID. And I don't know if he's watching this, but
if he is, just know that we're thinking of him, and wishing him
a speedy--a speedy recovery.
But, Mr. Chairman, and to our Ranking Member Graham, good
morning, to both of you, to Members of the Committee. It's an
honor to be here with you, once again, for the Senate Judiciary
Committee to introduce an exceptional judicial nominee,
Magistrate Judge Jennifer Hall, to serve as the next U.S.
district court judge for Delaware.
I also want to acknowledge my friend and wingman from
Delaware. Senator Coons shares my belief that Magistrate Judge
Hall is well qualified, well qualified to serve in this
important role.
The collaborative process that Senator Coons, and I, have
used for putting forward U.S. district court nominees to the
President is simple, and it is straightforward. The
collaborative process that we use actually reminds me of what
we used to do when I was governor. And we had a judicial
nominating committee. They recommended great judges, and I
nominated them to the State legislature. And, they were
literally all confirmed, if you could believe that, over 8
years.
We rely, today, on a judicial nominating commission, and
charge them with helping us identify the most qualified
individuals, regardless of political party, to recommend to the
President. We believe it serves Delaware well. We believe it
serves our Nation well, and has yielded yet another
extraordinary nominee.
So, colleagues, let me share just a little bit more about
Jennifer, with you this morning. I kid that Jennifer, even this
morning, about being waitlisted at the Ohio State University--
one of my alma maters. But, all kidding aside, Jenn grew up in
Minnesota, is a proud graduate of the University of Minnesota.
Home of the Golden Gophers.
She earned her bachelor's degree in biochemistry, but then
decided that one degree wasn't enough. So, Jenn made her way to
Yale, where she would meet her husband, Dave, and earn not one,
but two more degrees: a master's in molecular physics and
biochemistry, as well as a Ph.D. in the same discipline.
But, apparently three degrees weren't enough. So, Jenn
applied to, and was accepted into, the University of Delaware--
no, not the University of Delaware Law School, but University
of Pennsylvania Law School, where she graduated magna cum
laude, and immediately began a successful legal career.
In the years that followed, she had the distinction
clerking for two Federal judges appointed by former President
George W. Bush: Judge Jordan and Judge Prost--who are, I
believe, with us here today, and delighted to welcome them.
Jenn went on to work at the Wilmington, Delaware, law firm
of Fish & Richardson, where she focused on patent law and other
complex business cases. But, after 3 years in private practice,
she felt called to serve the people of Delaware, and of
America. She spent the next 8 years at the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Delaware, where she served under U.S. Attorneys
appointed by both Republican and Democratic Presidents.
Then in 2019, Jenn was selected to serve as a magistrate
judge on the U.S. District Court for the State of Delaware, the
same court to which she's now been nominated to serve as a
Federal judge. The last 4 years have given her the best
preparation, and on-the-job training, that someone could ask
for. Magistrate Judge Hall has impressed her colleagues on the
bench, both with her intellect and her work ethic, and she has
a deep perspective knowledge of the law.
Her background as a scientist, a legal scholar, and a
magistrate judge have prepared her for this new role. And, I'm
certain she'll be ready to hit the ground running on day one,
especially in the district court as busy as Delaware's is.
Jenn is joined here today by her husband of 21 years, Dave,
and by her proud parents. And they are the proud parents of a
son and a daughter. I know they're not--I don't think either of
them are here today, they're a little bit younger. But, I'm
sure they are at school somewhere cheering their mom on.
Her parents, Thomas and Mary Larson, are here, though, and
we welcome them. We want to thank you, especially the mom, for
bringing your daughter into the world. And, with the help of
her husband, in helping her raise her, and prepare her for this
opportunity in this service.
I also want to recognize Judge Jordan and Judge Ambro from
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, who are with us today, in
support of Jenn's nomination, and Judge Prost from the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals. I'm proud to join the Chairman of
today's hearing, Senator Coons, in giving Magistrate Jennifer
Hall my very strongest possible endorsement. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Ranking Member Graham, for the opportunity to
introduce her to the Members of this Committee, today, and wish
her well. Thank you so much.
Senator Coons. Great. Thank you, Senator Carper. Thank you
for that fulsome introduction of Magistrate Judge Jennifer
Hall. Rather than repeat an introduction that is substantially
identical to what you just said, I'll just make a few
additional comments, if I might. And, please, I know how busy
you are. If you choose to stay for my brief remarks, you may,
but, I understand most of us have several hearings going on at
the same time. Thank you for joining us, Senator Carper.
Judge Hall, if confirmed, will be joining a critically
important court in the District of Delaware that handles a
remarkable volume of complex patent cases, and significant
commercial litigation. It has one of the busiest dockets in the
country. One district judge has just described it as, ``not
drinking from a fire hose, but standing under a waterfall,''
and it takes an extraordinary person to serve in that court.
Judge Hall is an ideal candidate for this seat because of her
unique blend of skills, and experience, and her intimate
familiarity with our district.
You've already heard about her education, her clerkships,
her background. I'll emphasize that Judge Hall worked at Fish &
Richardson, where she litigated intellectual property, and
other complex commercial cases. I think her doctorate in
molecular biophysics and molecular biochemistry is expertise
that will be exceptionally helpful, and relevant, in deciding
complex intellectual property cases.
I want to emphasize that the American Bar Association
unanimously rated her as ``well qualified.'' And, that, on top
of her public service, and personal and professional
accomplishments, she is a mother, daughter, and wife. I welcome
your family. I also must acknowledge the esteemed guests in the
audience: Judges Ambro and Jordan of the Third Circuit, Vice
Chancellor Zurn, Judge Hall's current clerks, and, I believe,
and Judge Prost of the Federal Circuit.
You have been very well prepared by education, by
clerkship, by service. You are balanced and grounded. Your
exceptional qualifications, and strong character, and even
temperament, will make you an asset to the District of
Delaware, and I urge my colleagues to support your nomination.
With that, if I might, with the assistance of the clerks,
we're going to change the names in front of us. If all six of
the nominees would please come forward. I will swear you in,
and we will begin with the opening statements of all six of the
nominees.
[Pause.]
Senator Coons. Please raise your right hand and repeat
after me.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Senator Coons. Thank you. All witnesses having been sworn,
Ms. Garnett, once you've settled in. Welcome to all six of you,
to your families. And, again, my thanks to my colleagues who
were able to join us to introduce you to this Committee today.
Ms. Garnett, your opening statement, please.
STATEMENT OF MARGARET M. GARNETT, NOMINEE TO SERVE
AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Ms. Garnett. Good morning, Chair Coons, Ranking Member
Graham, and Members of the Committee. And, thank you, to Chair
Durbin, in his absence, for scheduling this hearing today.
I'd like to begin by thanking Senator Schumer for his kind
words of introduction, and for trusting me with this
opportunity when he recommended me to the President. I'm
grateful for Senator Gillibrand's support, as well. I also want
to thank President Biden for the tremendous honor of this
nomination. I want to thank all of my family who are watching
this hearing around the country, and who have been steadfast in
their support.
I've been so fortunate in my professional life to have many
wonderful mentors and colleagues who have made me the lawyer I
am today, and have encouraged, and supported, me throughout
this process. I can't possibly name them all, but several of
them are here today. All of them began as colleagues at the
U.S. Attorney's Office, and have become treasured friends:
Jeffrey Brown, Jenna Dabbs, Dan Gitner, Margaret Graham, Parvin
Moyne, and Rebecca Ricigliano.
I'm blessed to have my husband, Seth Coppens, here with me,
who is my partner and companion in all things. In the lottery
of marriage, I truly am the luckiest. To my son and my
daughter, who are at camp today, but will watch this later--I
hope--I want to say that being your mother is the most
important job I will ever have. Helping you two grow up into
the people you are meant to be, pushes me to be the best
version of myself, and to try to bring that best self to
everything else I do in life.
I was born in the Southern District of New York, in West
Point Army Hospital. My father was teaching there, at the time,
after having, himself, been the sixth consecutive generation of
our family to graduate from West Point. Both of my parents grew
up as military kids, too, and so, I learned early from my
parents, my grandparents, and my great-grandparents, the values
of duty, service, and love of country.
My father and stepfather's army career took my family all
over the country, and the world, but I returned to the Southern
District of New York as a young adult. And, I have built both
my own family and my legal career as a proud resident of New
York City. It has been my great privilege to spend most of my
career as a lawyer in service to the people of New York City,
New York State, and the United States, and I would be
incredibly honored to continue that service as a United States
district judge for the Southern District of New York if I'm
lucky enough to be confirmed by this Senate.
Today, especially, I feel profoundly grateful for my
family's long legacy of service to this country, which has
formed the bedrock of my life. I hope to earn the support of
this Committee, and I'm happy to be here, today, to answer your
questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Ms. Garnett. Judge
Hall, your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JENNIFER L. HALL, NOMINEE TO SERVE
AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF
DELAWARE
Judge Hall. I would like to thank Chair Durbin, and Ranking
Member Graham, for scheduling this hearing. And thank you,
Senator Coons, for presiding over the hearing today. Thank you
to all the Members of the Committee for the opportunity to
appear before you, today, as you consider my nomination.
I'm so grateful to President Biden for the incredible honor
of this nomination. I would like to thank our Delaware
Senators, Senator Carper and Senator Coons, for their generous
introductions this morning, and for their support of my
nomination.
Some of my family are here with me today. My husband, Dave,
is here. We met 26 years ago, and since that time, he has been
my best friend and my biggest supporter. He supported me, and
my decisions to go to law school, and to devote my career to
public service. I thank him for his love and encouragement.
Dave and I have two incredible children. They're very busy
kids, and they're back home enjoying their summer activities
this week. My son is a talented tennis player and computer
coder. And, my family just returned last week from my
daughter's national dance competition, where her team and solo
routines had a successful end to their competition season. Also
here to support me are my parents, Thomas and Mary Larson, of
Chincoteague Island, Virginia.
I'd also like to recognize two people who are not
physically here today, but watching online, my parents-in-law,
Don and Dana Hall, of Smyrna, Georgia. Three of my current, and
former, law clerks are here with me today: Gregory Gramling,
Ellen Watlington, and Sara Metzler. These talented lawyers,
along with my other former clerks, and my courtroom deputy,
Cailah Garfinkel, make up my chambers family. I have been so
privileged to work with them to keep the wheels of justice
turning during the 4 years I have served as a Federal
magistrate judge.
Also here today supporting me is my dear friend, Vice
Chancellor Morgan Zurn, of the Delaware Court of Chancery, who
I've known since we met the first year of law school. I had the
incredible good fortune to begin my legal career clerking for
Judge Sharon Prost of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit, and Judge Kent Jordan of the Third
Circuit. There are no better role models for a young lawyer
than Judge Jordan and Judge Prost. Their commitment to public
service and the rule of law is inspiring, and I've carried the
lessons I learned from them with me throughout my career and
onto the bench. Both of them are here today, as is their
colleague on the Third Circuit, Judge Thomas Ambro. I
appreciate their support.
I would also like to thank my colleagues from the practice
of law, and on the bench. It has been the honor of my life to
serve alongside the judges in the District of Delaware, and I'm
absolutely thrilled about the possibility of continuing to
serve with them in a new role, if I'm so fortunate as to be
confirmed as a United States district judge.
Members of the Committee, I truly appreciate your
consideration of my nomination, and I look forward to answering
your questions.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Judge Hall. Ms. McMillion.
STATEMENT OF BRANDY R. MCMILLION, NOMINEE TO SERVE
AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Ms. McMillion. Good morning. Thank you, to Chair Durbin and
Ranking Member Graham, for holding this hearing today, and to
Senator Coons for presiding, and to all the Senators for
considering my nomination. I would also like to thank my home
State Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Gary Peters, for their
confidence in me, and to Senator Stabenow for the warm
introduction provided this morning. I would like to thank
President Biden for nominating me for the position of a
lifetime. I am honored, extremely humbled, and grateful for the
opportunity to serve the citizens of the Eastern District of
Michigan.
There are so many people to thank, near and far, that have
gotten me to this point. I would like to thank my supporters
that are watching remotely: all of my family and friends, my
Trinity Church family, my sorors, and Intrigue, the Warrior
Women, my U.S. Attorney's Office family back in Michigan, all
of my colleagues and mentors, past and present.
I have special thanks to the people who did join me here,
today. First, to my cousin, Lynn Bradley, for traveling from
South Carolina. I knew this was something you would not miss.
And, to my law school study partners, Jewel Taylor and Arika
Pierce Williams: What a long way we've come since the student
lounge at 20th and 8th Street.
There are two women in my life that I would not be who I am
without their undying love and support.
First to my mother, Cynthia Anderson, who could not be here
today. Thank you for everything and all of your sacrifices.
Thank you for sending your 12-year-old little girl away to live
with your sister so that I could have the best opportunity at a
brighter future.
And, thank you to my aunt, Barbara Anderson, who is here
today, for everything that she instilled in me. She taught me
the importance of education, humility, strong work ethic, and
family. But, most importantly, she taught me selflessness,
service, and giving back. She instilled in me that a legacy of
service is greater than anything I could ever earn. There's no
doubt that without her, I would not be sitting before you,
today.
And to the four most important people in my life that sit
here behind me. My husband, Brian McMillion: Without you, there
is no me. Thank you for all your support, for being the best
friend that I could have ever asked for, for being my life
partner, and believing in and supporting me, every step of this
journey. Who would've pictured us here when we met as 17-year-
old kids at the University of Michigan?
And to my three little heartbeats--my daughter and my two
sons--being your mother is by far my greatest accomplishment.
You each inspire me to be better, every day, and I love you
beyond words. I sit here today praying that if you don't take
anything away from this experience, you know that if you dream
it, you can be it.
I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge my three guardian
angels who are not here with me in the physical form, but who I
carry with me in spirit daily. My brother, John Murphy, who was
my first friend and fiercest protector. My grandparents, Robert
and Bessie Anderson, who loved me unconditionally, and would
give me the world, and are, in large part, the reason why I was
able to attend law school. I know that they are looking down on
this moment. And, as I sit here, I am living my grandparents'
wildest dreams.
Senators, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today, and for your considering my nomination, and I look
forward to your questions. Thank you.
Senator Welch [presiding]. Thank you. Ms. Mehalchick. Did I
say that right?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, Senator. It's Mehalchick, yes.
Senator Welch. Mehalchick. Thank you.
Judge Mehalchick. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. KAROLINE MEHALCHICK, NOMINEE TO
SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MID-
DLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Judge Mehalchick. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, Senator Welch, Members of this Committee. Thank you for
today's hearing, and taking your time this morning to hear from
us. I am so honored and humbled to be here today, and to be
considered for an appointment as a judge on the District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
I'd like to begin by thanking President Biden for the great
honor of this nomination. Thank you to Senator Casey and
Senator Fetterman, for their support. And, thank you,
especially, to Senator Casey for his kind words this morning in
his introduction, and for his unwavering support through this
process.
I am tremendously grateful for the support and love of my
parents. My mother, Rita, is watching from her home in Vermont,
and for my father, George Mehalchick, who's here with me today
on his birthday. My father was my first mentor. A role model of
hard work, patience, and perseverance. My parents instilled in
me the value and importance of hard work, of service to the
public, and of giving back to my community. And those are
values that I hold close, every day, in all of my work. I'm
also joined by my children, here today. My son, John, who is
16, and my daughter, Anna, who is 14. The two of them are the
lights of my life, and they inspire me, every day, to be the
best example I can be for them. You both make me so proud every
day in your own accomplishments, as you grow into amazing young
adults.
Thank you to the rest of my family that could not be here
today, but, I know are watching, and supporting me, from home,
including my sister, Annie, in San Francisco. To the members of
my Scranton, my Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania, and Federal
bar communities, who have supported me, both in my career and
in this process, I must thank you.
A special thank you to Judge Trish Corbett, the first
female judge in Lackawanna County, and my first professional
mentor. Thank you, Judge Corbett, for giving me the opportunity
to clerk for you all those years ago, and for being my first
model of a fair, open-minded, patient, and diligent judge.
And thank you to the members of my personal community. My
village. Without your support, I would not be here today, and
you're all truly friends who are family. So, Corey, Cindy,
Judy, Julie, and Brian. Thank you. Thank you for everything.
Ten years ago, I had the great honor of being appointed to
serve as a magistrate judge in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. And that's been a privilege that I never even
dreamed of: to be able to serve the community, in which I grew
up, for the past decade. I'm so grateful for the support of
that court family, and especially my courtroom deputy, and my
law clerks, and my district and magistrate judge colleagues. I
welcome the opportunity to continue to serve those communities,
and my Middle District Court family, if I am so fortunate as to
be confirmed as a district judge for that same court.
Senators, it is an honor beyond my wildest dreams, and a
great privilege to be here today before you. Thank you for your
consideration of my nomination. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Mr. Laroski.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. LAROSKI, JR., NOMINEE TO SERVE
AS A JUDGE FOR THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTER-
NATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Laroski. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking
Member Graham for scheduling this hearing, Senator Welch for
presiding today, Senator Coons for his introduction, and
Members of this Committee, here today.
I would first like to thank President Biden for nominating
me. There has been no greater honor for me, in my career as a
lawyer thus far, than to stand up and present myself as for the
United States. It is with great pride and humility that I come
to this Committee today seeking to, again, serve my country and
its laws as a judge on the Court of International Trade.
Perhaps my only greater points of pride sit behind me, and
I'd like to introduce my family. First, my wife, Kathleen Kohl:
my partner, my best friend, my playmate, my mentor, my
colleague. A woman of great vision and intellect. Together,
we're on a life journey, and mission, founded on unconditional
love and hard work, in the service of God, our country, and our
family. None of this would be possible without her.
Central to our mission are the three beautiful, strong,
smart, kind children sitting with Kathleen. They have shown us,
each in their own unique way, what is possible when we stay
true to our passions, and summon our grit. Watching their
growth as individuals reminds and encourages me to use my gifts
fully, and to share them freely.
I would also like to acknowledge my parents, who are not
here. My mother, Judy, who modeled for me a commitment to our
country through 38 years of civilian service at Fort Monmouth,
New Jersey. And, my father, Joe, who passed in 2010. After
finishing an overnight shift at the plant, he would always
somehow manage to make it to cheer on my races in the
afternoon. He, and his co-workers at Plant F, lent a human face
for me to an area of law that focuses on commodities, rather
than the workers and farmers that produce them.
Finally, I want to thank my colleagues in the International
Trade Bar, including Chris Cloutier who's here, as well as all
who've guided my education and my development as a lawyer.
Thank you, again, for considering my nomination, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Ms. Wang.
STATEMENT OF LISA W. WANG, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS A
JUDGE FOR THE UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNA-
TIONAL TRADE
Ms. Wang. Thank you, Senator Welch, Ranking Member Graham,
and Members of the Committee, for convening this hearing, and
for considering my nomination as a judge of the U.S. Court of
International Trade. I am humbled and honored to be here today,
and I am thankful to the Biden-Harris administration for my
nomination. I also am grateful for Senator Coon's introduction
and kind words. I also hope for Senator Durbin's speedy
recovery.
I would like to begin by thanking my parents. Two
immigrants who came to the United States with little more than
their dreams for a better future for their only child. My
success is a direct result of their hard work and
determination, and I will remain forever thankful for their
support and guidance. I'd also like to thank my husband, Tim,
and our two daughters, for their encouragement and unending
optimism. For all the rain in life, they are the rainbow at the
end of the storm.
Finally, I want to express my appreciation for my current
colleagues at the U.S. Department of Commerce who work, day in
and day out, to ensure the success of U.S. businesses and U.S.
workers. It remains the honor of a lifetime to work alongside
them each day.
Once again, Senators, thank you.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. The Chair will
recognize himself for 5 minutes of questions, but, I want to
just start by saying it's pretty inspiring listening to each of
you. It's extraordinary accomplishments and careers you've had.
And, when I listen to you speak about the people who are so
important to your lives and helped you, I think we've got some
future jurists in the mix. But, thank you all very much.
I'll start--Ms. Garnett, tell us, just in your own words,
how you see your experience helping you be effective in the new
position to which you've been nominated.
Ms. Garnett. Thank you, Senator. I think I feel very
fortunate to have, kind of, grown up as a lawyer in the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York where,
I think, the culture and ethic is that of doing the right thing
in the right way, every day. So, I've learned a lot from that
experience about not just winning, you know, while being an
advocate for the Government, as is our role as Assistant U.S.
Attorneys, also to care about what's in the public interest,
what is in the interest of justice.
So, I think I will carry that training and culture with me
on the bench, as well as the practical experience of spending
an awful lot of hours in the courtrooms of the Southern
District of New York.
Senator Welch. Thank you. And, Mr. Laroski, your activity
has been as an advocate in trade. In your new position, you'll
not be an advocate. How do you--just talk a little bit about
how you're going to make that transition from the role and
responsibility you had as an advocate to the neutral role that
you would have as a judge.
Mr. Laroski. Thank you, Senator. My 25 years of experience
primarily as an advocate have been really formative, and will
certainly inform my understanding of the laws. I've wrestled
with the laws that are subject to the appeals to this court
from every perspective: from the domestic producer's
perspective, the foreign producer, and U.S. importer's
perspective, as well as from the Government agencies that have
been charged with administering and enforcing these laws.
It's been a breadth of experience that's allowed me to see
issues from all sides as an advocate, and anticipate opposing
arguments. And, I think, as a judge on the Court of
International Trade, if I'm so lucky, it will serve me well in
that capacity, as well. I've also had the opportunity to
adjudicate certain matters as the Acting Assistant Secretary at
Commerce, and in my role as the Deputy Assistant Secretary,
which also gave me the opportunity to look at things through.
Senator Welch. Thank you. And, Ms. Wang, while you were at
the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, you were very active in overseeing
U.S. response to all the Chinese allegations of unfair
subsidies. And I want to give you an opportunity to explain how
your time in that office will help you in your position on this
court.
Ms. Wang. My time at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing,
representing the U.S. Government in our defense of China's
countervailing duty cases against the United States, really
established the importance of rule of law in our international
trading system. And the fairness that is fundamental in trade
was formative during my experience at the Embassy.
Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm going to ask
Ms. Mehalchick. You served as magistrate for 10 years, and
chief magistrate recently, and I understand you've argued cases
in many, many courts before that, including the Supreme Court.
I want you to have an opportunity to express how you'll make
the transition from being a magistrate judge to this new
position.
Judge Mehalchick. Thank you, Senator. As a magistrate judge
in the Middle District for the last 10 years, I've had the
opportunity to preside over nearly every type of civil case
that I would be assigned as a district judge in our court. I
have presided over all kinds of initial criminal appearances,
and bail, and detention hearings.
And the matters which I would be presiding over as a
district judge, if I have the honor of being confirmed, that I
have not had the opportunity to do as a magistrate judge, are
felony criminal trials. I have presided over misdemeanor
criminal trials and petty offense trials.
And so, I think that that transition, while there would
certainly be more complex cases, and like I said, felony
criminal trials, my decade of experience as a magistrate judge
has prepared me to make that transition very well.
Senator Welch. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much. Ms. Garnett, you
authored a opinion piece with another individual about
whistleblowers, and, I think, in New York Law, compelling
people to come forward. Is that correct?
Ms. Garnett. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Graham. In the first paragraph, you said--this is
in 2019, I think, ``Over the past few weeks, the country has
been riveted by the news of a whistleblower within the
intelligence community who filed a formal complaint alleging
wrongdoing by President Trump. In turn, we have watched the
whistleblower defamed by the President, his allies, even
accused of treason, despite his having meticulously followed
the lawful process to report possible criminal conduct. This
took remarkable courage. There was no legal obligation to
report it. There were serious risks to career reputation, even
personal safety for doing so.''
Was that your view of Mr. Vindman?
Ms. Garnett. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. Okay.
Ms. Garnett. I stand by what I wrote in that op-ed.
Senator Graham. Okay. Are you aware that whistleblowers
have come forward from the IRS challenging the impartiality of
the Hunter Biden investigation?
Ms. Garnett. Yes. I've read about that in the newspaper.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, would your kind words extend to
them?
Ms. Garnett. Yes, I think, Senator, as I've said
repeatedly, when I was commissioner of the New York City
Department of Investigation, that having lawful channels for
government employees to come forward to report what they
believe is wrongful, fraudulent, corrupt conduct, is vitally
important to honest government. And I would extend that view to
any whistleblower. Yes.
Senator Graham. Ms. Hall, you worked with Mr. Weiss. Is
that correct?
Judge Hall. Yes, I did.
Senator Graham. What time periods did you work for him?
Judge Hall. I was hired in that office by former United
States Attorney Oberly in 2011, Mr. Weiss was in the office in
a career position at that time, and I left the office in 2019,
when I took the job as a United States magistrate judge.
Senator Graham. In 2019, 2018, were you aware of the
investigation of Hunter Biden by Mr. Weiss?
Judge Hall. Sitting here today, I can't remember if I knew
that there was an investigation at that time. I've since
learned, in the news, that the investigation originated while I
was still at the office. But, I had no involvement in that
investigation while I was at the office.
Senator Graham. Was there any chatter in the office about
this investigation at all?
Judge Hall. Not that I recall, Senator.
Senator Graham. Okay. So, you know nothing about it.
Judge Hall. I know nothing about this investigation.
Senator Graham. Are you aware of recent reports that on
October the 7th, 2022, two whistleblowers claimed to have been
in attendance at a meeting with Mr. Weiss, where he indicated
that the decision of how to charge, and where to charge, Hunter
Biden, was not his. It was other people had made that decision.
Judge Hall. I am aware from reading the newspaper that
there are whistleblowers that have come forward.
Senator Graham. Given what you know about Mr. Weiss, how
does that strike you?
Judge Hall. I appreciate the question, Senator. The code of
conduct for United States Federal judges prohibits me from
commenting on any pending case--pending before any court. And
so, I don't feel that it'd be appropriate for me to comment on
anything regarding a pending case. I can tell you that I have
no involvement in that case.
Senator Graham. Well, Ms. Garnett, based on your view of
whistleblowers, all of us should take these allegations
seriously. Do you agree?
Ms. Garnett. Yes, Senator. I would just--I would say, in my
experience, almost two decades, as a prosecutor and
investigator, that my own approach would not--to be, to take
the word of any whistleblower, informant, cooperating witness,
at face value, and look for corroboration. But, I definitely,
as I said in my previous----
Senator Graham. And if you found----
Ms. Garnett [continuing]. Answer.
Senator Graham [continuing]. Corroboration, what does that
mean to you?
Ms. Garnett. I'm sorry, Senator?
Senator Graham. If you found corroboration of what they
said, what does that mean to you?
Ms. Garnett. Well, I think that any investigator or
prosecutor would view corroboration as important to assessing
the credibility of witnesses.
Senator Graham. Ms. Hall, are you aware that one of the
whistleblowers actually sent an email about the meeting to
other people, in real time, identifying the substance of the
allegation on the same day it was made?
Judge Hall. I was not aware of that, Senator.
Senator Graham. Ms. Garnett, would you consider that
corroboration?
Ms. Garnett. I don't know the facts of this case, Senator,
but I would. In my experience as a prosecutor, contemporaneous
statements are important in assessing witness' credibility.
Yes.
Senator Graham. Thank you. Ms. Mehalchick. Is that right?
Judge Mehalchick. Mehalchick----
Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you.
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. So, you were a magistrate judge in the
Spanier case. Did I say that--Graham Spanier?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes.
Senator Graham. He was the former president of Penn State.
He was convicted by State court, and you granted a habeas
petition. Can you tell us a bit about that?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, Senator. He petitioned the court
to--seeking his conviction to be set aside, and a new trial
granted, due to a jury instruction that was given by the State
court. And that was his request.
Senator Graham. And you granted that request?
Judge Mehalchick. I, after careful review of the law
related to that habeas petition, and the arguments made by the
parties, I determined that the jury instruction that was given
by the State court was in violation of the petitioner's due
process. Yes.
Senator Graham. Did the Third Circuit overrule your
decision?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, they did.
Senator Graham. How many times have you been overruled by
higher courts?
Judge Mehalchick. In my decade on the bench, Senator, I
have issued over 1,500 written opinions, and memorandum
decisions, and reports, and recommendations in civil matters,
and issued----
Senator Graham. Are all of those reviewed by higher courts?
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. And then, in addition to
that, the over a thousand criminal orders and decisions on
release and detention. And they are all subject to review by
either the district court or the Third----
Senator Graham. Were they reviewed?
Judge Mehalchick. They were not all reviewed because the
parties didn't always seek review of them. And it----
Senator Graham. So, I've been told that you've been
reversed 31 times. Does that sound about right?
Judge Mehalchick. That sounds about right. Of those 31, I
believe, at least two-thirds of them were only in part.
Senator Graham. Yes. So, you were criticized by the court
for not understanding the Eleventh Amendment applied to
cities----
[Gavel gently tapped.]
Senator Graham [continuing]. Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Yes, there
are not many of us here. So, I'll just try to wrap it up. The
Eleventh Amendment applied to cities, not just States. Do you
remember that case?
Judge Mehalchick. I don't know specifically which case
you're referring to, Senator.
Senator Graham. Okay. Do you remember a case where the
court criticized you for confusing sovereign immunity and
qualified immunity? The Potter County case?
Judge Mehalchick. I don't remember that specific case
either, Senator.
Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Welch. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much. Thanks to each of you for
being here, and for your willingness to serve. Ms. Mehalchick,
I'd like to start with you, if that's all right. I want to talk
about Lochner v. New York, for a moment. Was that case
correctly decided? And, I'd love to know your reasoning as to
why it was, or was not, correctly decided.
Judge Mehalchick. Senator, I believe that is still binding
caselaw in our----
Senator Lee. It's not.
Judge Mehalchick. I'm sorry, Senator. I----
Senator Lee. Lochner v. New York.
Judge Mehalchick. Lochner v. New York.
Senator Lee. Yes.
Judge Mehalchick. No. So, because that is no longer binding
caselaw, I would stand by whatever the precedent of the Third
Circuit, and the Supreme Court, is. And that is the appropriate
standards and law to apply in any cases that come before me.
Senator Lee. Yes. That's why I chose this one because it's
dead precedent. It's----
Judge Mehalchick. Yes.
Senator Lee [continuing]. Not around anymore.
Judge Mehalchick. Correct.
Senator Lee. If you remember, this is the case where the
Supreme Court invalidated some minimum wage, maximum hour laws
passed by the State of New York----
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, Senator.
Senator Lee [continuing]. Affecting bakery employees. Do
you still feel you can't opine on that, even though it's dead?
Judge Mehalchick. Senator, I think that it would be
inappropriate for me to opine on it, in the sense that what is
binding, and appropriate for me to apply, would be the binding
precedent of the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court, at this
point.
Senator Lee. Got you. It's unusual, and that's why I choose
that case, on occasion, is because it is dead letter. So, it's
disappointing that you won't get into it. I hope you reconsider
when I submit questions for the record.
Ms. Garnett, let's go to you next, if possible. On July
10th, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York, which is the Office where you now work as Special
Counsel, announced that it was bringing charges against Dr. Gal
Luft, who claims that, in 2019, he gave incriminating
information about Hunter Biden to the Department of Justice.
About this indictment--his indictment, Dr. Luft said, quote,
``I've volunteered to inform the U.S. Government about a
potential security breach, and about compromising information
about a man vying to be the next President, and I'm now being
hunted by the very same people who I informed,'' closed quote.
Are those charges against Dr. Luft, are they retribution
for his willingness to speak out about Biden family corruption?
Ms. Garnett. No, Senator, those were charges--were actually
returned in the fall of last year. That indictment was returned
in the fall of last year. Mr. Luft was arrested in, I believe,
Cyprus, and he was bailed pending extradition, and he fled from
his bail.
Senator Lee. Would you agree that they could be perceived
as retribution for blowing the whistle on Hunter Biden?
Ms. Garnett. I suppose someone could make that accusation
Senator, but I don't believe it's accurate.
Senator Lee. Do you think, at least, the timing of those
charges--I mean, wasn't it on July 10th that the U.S.
Attorney's Office announced that it was bringing those charges?
Ms. Garnett. Actually, Senator, the charges were returned
last fall. The indictment in the United States, I believe, was
unsealed on July 10th. I had no involvement with that decision.
The indictment was unsealed in the United States, at that time,
because it was determined, if--as I understand it, that Mr.
Luft had fled from his bail in Cyprus----
Senator Lee. Okay.
Ms. Garnett [continuing]. And was not likely to be
rearrested.
Senator Lee. They were returned then. When were the
statements made to the Government--the underlying statements?
Weren't they made in 2019?
Ms. Garnett. I had no involvement with that, Senator, so I
don't know the details.
Senator Lee. Okay. Given the concerns you've expressed
about whistleblowers in the past, aren't you concerned about
this whistleblower, and about the appearance, or the
perception, that he might have been the victim of retribution
here?
Ms. Garnett. I understand that some folks have expressed
that perception. I can tell you from my experience, in the case
last year, that that is not accurate.
Senator Lee. Okay. Ms. Wang, I'd like to ask you a couple
questions, if that's all right. When you were a student at
Cornell, you made a statement to the effect that, quote, ``One
of the things I've run into, in America, is that people pay lip
service to liberal causes, but still have deeply rooted
prejudices.''
Is it fair to say, that this is what you perceive about
left, leftist hypocrisy? Or, what is it?
Ms. Wang. Senator----
Senator Lee. Or poser leftists? Or is it----
Ms. Wang. Senator, those statements were made during my
time at Cornell as an undergraduate regarding anti-Asian bias
incidents of hate crimes. And so, it was efforts to get the
administration to have an open dialogue, and to acknowledge
that there was violence against a particular group of students
on campus.
Senator Lee. Okay. Would you agree, then, that the
consideration of race in college admissions, an issue that's
recently been addressed by the Supreme Court of the United
States, might be one of the causes that one could refer to,
that's, on its face, liberal, and yet, it's deeply rooted in
prejudice?
Ms. Wang. Senator, my personal views are irrelevant to my
current standing before you. Because as a judge, I would be a
neutral arbiter, faithfully applying precedent, and the text of
the statute.
Senator Lee. Okay. I'm out of time. It appears to me that
sometimes the candidates are being invoked a little bit
excessively. We can talk about things. We can reason with
things, without weighing in on how you might rule as a judge.
Thank you.
Senator Welsh. Thank you, Senator. Senator Coons.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Welsh. It is good to be
with you. If I might----
Senator Welsh. There are a few changes around here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Coons. It's amazing how quickly you have ascended
to the Chairmanship, but, given the depth of your experience in
the House, and your wisdom, I am in no way surprised.
Judge Mehalchick, if I might, many of your experiences have
involved sharing your skills to help others build their skills.
You've taught graduate students, trained pro se plaintiffs,
worked to educate other judges about the code of conduct. I
think it's particularly important that you serve on the
Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct.
I just wanted to invite you to speak more about what it
means to give back through education, and how your experience
training others has shaped your experience on the court.
Judge Mehalchick. Thank you, Senator. I think that through
my work, whether it's presenting ethics education programs to
my fellow magistrate judges, or speaking with high school and
middle school students as part of scholar exchanges on
constitutional issues, it's part of giving back to the
community. I think it's important to involve the community in
the judiciary, teach them, have an open dialogue with them
about what it is that we do, so that our work is as transparent
as possible, and it instills more public trust, especially in
younger generations as they grow up in this country.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Mr. Laroski, Ms. Wang, you are
both nominated to the Court of International Trade, which is
unique among Federal courts where it's very limited subject
matter jurisdiction. You both have significant experience
directly related to international trade. Could each of you, Mr.
Laroski, then Ms. Wang, just briefly tell us how your career
has prepared you for this highly specialized role?
Mr. Laroski. Senator, I first started my career in
international trade at the court. And there, gained a good
grounding, one, in the conduct of the court and how the judges
comport themselves, the importance of collegiality, and the
flow of the case work. Since leaving the court, I have dug deep
into the international trade laws, both customs and the anti-
dumping and countervailing duty laws, from the perspective of
virtually every party in litigation that would come before me.
And, in my negotiations and discussions with foreign nations,
presented and promoted the rule of law, and the American way of
proceeding through these cases.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Ms. Wang.
Ms. Wang. Senator, my qualifications for the Court of
International Trade is evident in my trade litigation
experience. For example, while at the U.S. Trade
Representative, I defended the United States' sovereign ability
for the concurrent application of anti-dumping and
countervailing duties to non-market economy countries like
China. In my current role as the Assistant Secretary of
Commerce, I am the sole decision-maker for 667 tariff duty
orders, and the thousands of derivative proceedings that stem
from it. Thank you.
Senator Coons. Thank you. Magistrate Hall, the District of
Delaware sees some of the most complex commercial and patent
cases of any district in the country. Some of them are very
difficult, very technical, and most of them involve some aspect
of intellectual property. You have a doctorate in molecular
physics and biochemistry.
How has that scientific background helped you in your
service as a magistrate judge when overseeing IP cases?
Judge Hall. Thank you so much for the question, Senator. As
you mentioned, the vast majority of the time the judges spend
in the District of Delaware is spent on complex intellectual
property cases. Hopefully, my degree in molecular biophysics
and biochemistry gives the parties confidence that the evidence
and the arguments they're presenting to the court on IP cases
is going to be understood and appropriately examined by the
court.
As was also mentioned earlier in the hearing, the court is
very, very busy. It is like drinking from a fire hose every
single day. And so, my background, in teaching myself science,
and the scientific background that I already have, enables me
to get up to speed very quickly on a case when it comes before
the court, so that I can more efficiently do the hard work of
the court.
Senator Coons. Thank you, Magistrate. Frankly, the District
of Delaware has long been one of the busiest in the country. It
was ranked the third busiest, by weighted caseload, last year.
It is in no small part because of your tremendous work ethic
and your experience as a magistrate that will allow you to step
right into this role when confirmed--or if confirmed, I should
say--that help make me confident that you were the best nominee
for this position. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Welch. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations
to all of the nominees. Judge Mehalchick, do you remember a
case called Yentzer v. Potter County?
Judge Mehalchick. I have a recollection that I presided
over that case. I don't know if I recall the details of it.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. And, you were reversed. Is that
right?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe that was a case that I issued.
I was a magistrate judge in that role and in the referral role
on it. And it was reviewed by the district court. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. And you were reversed. Right?
Judge Mehalchick. I don't recall in that case if I was--if
the report and the recommendation was adopted in full, or not
adopted----
Senator Kennedy. Well----
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. In full, but, yes.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. The higher court said, you
incorrectly analyzed qualified immunity, and you incorrectly
cited the Eleventh Amendment. Do you remember a case called
Myers v. Clinton County Correctional Facility?
Judge Mehalchick. I recall that case, as well.
Senator Kennedy. And you were reversed in that case, too.
Weren't you?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe I was--it was adopted in part.
Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a case called Dennis v.
Sheridan?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes. I believe I recall that case, as
well.
Senator Kennedy. And you were reversed in that case, too?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe that R&R was not adopted in
full. Correct, yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. But, you were reversed?
Judge Mehalchick. It was not adopted in--yes, by----
Senator Kennedy. Is that----
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. The district court.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. The same thing as being
reversed?
Judge Mehalchick. It's a different--the district court
declined to adopt the report----
Senator Kennedy. The higher court----
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. And recommendation.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Said you were wrong.
Judge Mehalchick. The district court disagreed with my
report. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Yes. Okay. Do you remember a case called
Chinniah v. East Pennsboro?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes. The Chinniahs are pro se plaintiffs
who have brought a number of cases----
Senator Kennedy. Right, right.
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. So, I'm not sure which one
you're referring to, but, yes.
Senator Kennedy. I'm just curious. You were reversed in
that case, too. Were you not?
Judge Mehalchick. In part, yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you remember a case called
Spanier v. Libby?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, I do.
Senator Kennedy. You--the president of Pennsylvania State
University was convicted of covering up child sex abuse crimes,
and you let him go on a habeas corpus petition. And the Third
Circuit reversed you. Is that right?
Judge Mehalchick. I directed that a new trial should be
held with a different jury instruction. And the Third Circuit
disagreed and found that he was--he had received the due
process he was entitled to. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Well, the Third Circuit said you failed to
cite, analyze, or properly apply the relevant caselaw. You were
reversed. Right?
Judge Mehalchick. The Third Circuit reversed my decision.
Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you remember a case called Hassel
v. Centric Bank?
Judge Mehalchick. I vaguely recall that case, yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. You were reversed. Weren't you?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe the district court failed to
adopt my--it declined to adopt my recommendation. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you remember a case called Ramsey
v. Amtrak?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, I do.
Senator Kennedy. And, the higher court reversed in that
case, too. Didn't they?
Judge Mehalchick. The district court concluded that I was
correct in finding that he--that the petitioner did not pay a
filing fee. And, where I had recommended that the case be
dismissed, he granted the petitioner 30 days to correct that.
Senator Kennedy. So, you were reversed, in part?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you remember a case called
McCracken v. Fulton County?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, I do.
Senator Kennedy. You were reversed in that case, too.
Weren't you?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe that was in part. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. You remember a case called Byrd v.
Brittain?
Judge Mehalchick. I do.
Senator Kennedy. And were you reversed in that case?
Judge Mehalchick. In part, yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you remember a case called Allen
v. Lackawanna County Board of Commissioners?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe I recall that case, Senator.
I'm----
Senator Kennedy. And you----
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. Not sure.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. You were reversed in that
case, too. Weren't you?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe I was reversed in part in that
case. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a case called Daniels v.
Capital One Bank?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. And I believe you were reversed in that
case, too?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe it was--yes, I believe so.
Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a case called Downey v.
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, I recall that case.
Senator Kennedy. And were you reversed in that case?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, I believe I was.
Senator Kennedy. Remember a case called Risjan v. Wetzel?
Judge Mehalchick. I vaguely recall that case, yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. And were you reversed by the higher court
there, too?
Judge Mehalchick. I believe that our report and
recommendation was not adopted in full.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. I don't have time to finish this
list. I mean, it's longer than King Kong's arm here. You've
been reversed a lot. In fact, you've been nominated before.
Haven't you?
Judge Mehalchick. No, I have not, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Well, you--your nomination was talked
about, and Senator Toomey refused to send in a blue slip for
you. Did he not?
Judge Mehalchick. I'm not--I'm not sure exactly what
happened. I know that this process has been ongoing for 2
years.
Senator Kennedy. Yes. But, you know that Senator Toomey
refused to even--thought that you were so unqualified that he
refused to even allow the Judiciary Committee to consider you.
Isn't that correct?
Judge Mehalchick. I do not know what Senator Toomey's
reasons were, sir.
Senator Kennedy. You've never talked to Senator Toomey
about it?
Judge Mehalchick. I never discussed it with Senator----
Senator Kennedy. And----
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. Toomey.
Senator Kennedy [continuing]. You don't know anything about
a blue slip being withheld on you?
Judge Mehalchick. I do not know----
Senator Kennedy. You're under oath.
Judge Mehalchick. I am under oath, and I know I did not
speak with Senator Toomey about his reasons for not----
Senator Kennedy. Was Senator Toomey's concern that you were
unqualified?
Judge Mehalchick. Again, Senator, I did not speak with
Senator Toomey, or his staff, about his reasons for not
supporting me.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Welch. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, to the
panelists. Congratulations on your nominations.
I'd like to start with Judge Mehalchick. So, there's been a
number of instances where you have been criticized, or
reversed. But, as I look at your record, I think you are
uniquely qualified to serve on the Federal bench.
In fact, the person who's seat you'll be sitting on, the
judicial vacancy you'll be sitting on, wrote a letter of
recommendation for you, should you be confirmed. And, in fact,
out of more than 1,200 cases, only 31 involved any reversal, or
a substantial criticism, by a reviewing court. That is a
success rate of 97.4 percent. That is a pretty good batting
average in anybody's opinion.
So, you've had extensive experience. You've been the--you
are the chief magistrate judge. As I've said, you've authored
over 1,200 memorandums, opinions, reports, and recommendations.
You've been on the bench for 10 years. You got a
recommendation, as I said, from the judge who you will be
replacing.
If confirmed, how has your extensive experience as a
Federal magistrate judge prepared you to serve on the Federal
district court?
Judge Mehalchick. Thank you, Senator. In my 10 years as a
magistrate judge, I have issued, like you referenced, over
1,200 written opinions, and reports, and recommendations. I've
issued over a thousand orders in criminal matters related to
detention and release, and I have presided over a number of
civil trials to verdict. I presided over criminal misdemeanor
trials to verdict, and petty offense trials.
I--all of that experience translates directly to the work I
would be doing as a district judge in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. And I believe that extensive record prepares me
well for the position of district judge in the Middle District
of Pennsylvania.
Senator Hirono. I agree with you, regarding your
experiences and preparation.
I would like to go back to two questions that I ask of all
nominees, to any of the Committees on which I sit. So, I will
ask each of you, and we'll just go down the line very quickly,
starting with Ms. Garnett.
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?
Ms. Garnett. No, Senator, I have not.
Judge Hall. No, Senator.
Ms. McMillion. No, Senator.
Judge Mehalchick. No, Senator.
Mr. Laroski. No, Senator.
Ms. Wang. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Same question. Have you ever faced
discipline, or entered into a settlement, related to this kind
of conduct?
Ms. Garnett. No, Senator.
Judge Hall. No, Senator.
Ms. McMillion. No, Senator.
Judge Mehalchick. No, Senator.
Mr. Laroski. No, Senator.
Ms. Wang. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. For Judge Hall, I don't think it's often
that we have a nominee who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. That is
highly impressive, I'd say. So, as a magistrate judge, you have
organized multiple events to encourage attorneys to participate
in pro bono legal services for survivors of domestic violence,
dating violence, and sexual abuse.
Why is pro bono service important, particularly for this
uniquely vulnerable community?
Judge Hall. Well, I think as the Supreme Court has
recognized, our legal system is very complicated. And having an
attorney is often essential to litigate in the Federal court.
Senator Hirono. For Ms. McMillion, you also have quite a
lot of pro bono hours. Prior to entering public service with
the U.S. Attorney's Office, you dedicated over 100 hours a year
to pro bono matters while in private practice. And this
included civil rights complaints and asylum applications.
Why is pro bono service so important to you?
Ms. McMillion. Senator, I believe that everyone deserves
representation in our legal system. And, for those that are not
fortunate enough to be able to afford that representation, I
think that it's very important that--for the justice system to
work, that we provide representation to all, and that quality
representation be presented to people, regardless of
background.
Senator Hirono. For Ms. Wang, I note that you are an
immigrant. And so, you came here at the age of five, and your
career was inspired by your father's American dream.
How has your personal experience as an immigrant informed
your work in international trade? And, if confirmed, how will
it inform your work as a judge on the U.S. Court of
International Trade?
Ms. Wang. Senator, first, thank you for recognizing my
father. He passed away a few years ago and is the greatest
inspiration of my life. He came to the United States with a
dream for fairness, and equal opportunity. And, it's through
that belief that I entered international trade, because
international trade, at its fundamental core, is about
fairness.
And, as an Assistant Secretary of Commerce right now, I've
traveled across the country talking to U.S. businesses and
workers about fairness, and leveling the playing field against
unfair trade practices. I think I would carry all of that with
me, should I be confirmed to the U.S. Court of International
Trade. Thank you.
Senator Hirono. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think we have a
very, very well-qualified panel today.
Senator Welch. Thank you, Senator. Senator Blackburn.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And,
congratulations to each of you on your nominations, and thank
you for being here today. And I know we're going to have some
questions that'll come to you as QFRs. So, we would ask that
you address those.
Judge Hall, I want to come to you. I think this work with
David Weiss is something that you've heard us go back to.
Senator Graham asked you about that, and you said you had no
information, participated in no way in that investigation. Is
that accurate?
Judge Hall. That is accurate, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. Let me ask you this. Did you have
any knowledge of, or any communication with, the two IRS
whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler?
Judge Hall. Senator, when I read about that whistleblowing
in the news, I had no recollection of ever having met either
individual.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. Would you like to check your
records, and be sure you had no communication with them? And
we'll put that in a QFR for you to give you the opportunity
to----
Judge Hall. Certainly, Senator.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Double-check your records.
Thank you very much.
Judge Mehalchick, if I may come to you. We've had some
discussion about the Spanier case, and I want to return to that
because we're quite sensitive to this issue in this Committee.
The President nominated Michael Delaney for a position. Mr.
Delaney ended up withdrawing his nomination, and it all came
down to his hardball tactics with a young woman. And this was
in a sexual assault case.
So, it is, first of all, perplexing that we have another
nominee before us who has a questionable ruling in a case,
which we have in your ruling, and dealing with the role of Mr.
Spanier's conviction of endangering the welfare of a child
during his role as president of Penn State.
So, this comes across as lack of respect for children and
the rule of law. And, Senator Kennedy laid out, very well, how
the court came back to you. And the Third Circuit actually
said, and wrote--and I'm quoting, again, that, ``you did not
examine this case closely.''
And, therefore, talk for about 30 seconds. If you don't
examine cases closely, and if you have a record--a high rate of
reversals--then, how do we expect you, as you move to the
court, to be more careful in your job, and more careful in your
decision-making?
Judge Mehalchick. Senator, my rate of reversal, in
considering the body of my work over the last 10 years,
including all civil and criminal decisions, is less than 2
percent. Most of the decisions reference----
Senator Blackburn. Okay. Let me--how--you're not answering
my question. All right, let's put it like this: How do we know
you're going to be able to fulfill your duties as a judge when
we look at this--and the Third Circuit has written that you did
not examine this case closely? This was a pretty high-profile
case. And they called you down about that, and they reversed
you in your decision.
So, how do we know you'll do your job? And, how do we know
what your method of statutorial interpretation is, with the
record that you've had?
Judge Mehalchick. Senator, the bulk of my record, over the
last 10 years, reflects cases that have been either not
appealed, or sought reconsideration of, by the parties before
me. And I think that that evidences a trust by the bar, and the
public, in my work. The bulk of my work that has been appealed
has been affirmed by the district court, and by the Third
Circuit. And I think that that exhibits a basis for having
faith in my work.
When I--when there has been a reversal----
Senator Blackburn. Okay. Let me ask you this. Do you think
you were right, or wrong, in the Spanier case?
Judge Mehalchick. Senator, the Third Circuit said, that I
got----
Senator Blackburn. No, that's not what I'm asking. I said,
were you right, or were you wrong?
Judge Mehalchick. Senator, I----
Senator Blackburn. What led you to make that decision?
Judge Mehalchick. When I approached that case, like I
approach any case before me, I carefully read the party's
briefs. I had open and engaging argument with----
Senator Blackburn. Do you think----
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. The party----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. You were right, or wrong?
Judge Mehalchick. I--when I issued that decision, I thought
I was doing it correctly. The Third Circuit found that I did it
incorrectly----
Senator Blackburn. And, after they----
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. And I read that decision----
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Reversed you, did you agree
with their reversal?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes. I would stand by what----
Senator Blackburn. Okay----
Judge Mehalchick [continuing]. The Third Circuit has done.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Welch. I want to thank our nominees, and families,
for being here. And, before we close, I would like to introduce
two letters----
[Voice off microphone.]
Senator Welch. You beat the--you beat the gavel. Senator
Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, to each of
the nominees.
Judge Mehalchick, I want to talk to you about a case you've
already discussed, considerably, which is the Spanier v. Libby
case. That's a case involving Graham Spanier, the former
president of Pennsylvania State University who was
investigated, terminated, and subsequently criminally charged
for his role in covering up the child sex abuse crimes
committed by Jerry Sandusky.
The sentencing memo, written by the prosecutors in that
case--State case, noted that Spanier had, quote, ``shown a
stunning lack of remorse of his victims.'' It further called
for him to be punished for, quote, ``choosing to protect his
personal reputation, and that of the university, instead of the
welfare of children.'' It further highlighted that Spanier,
quote, ``was the ultimate decision-maker when it came to
reporting Sandusky.''
Your decision in that case was reversed, unanimously, by
the Third Circuit. Is that correct?
Judge Mehalchick. A three-judge panel of the circuit
reversed my decision. Yes.
Senator Cruz. Unanimously?
Judge Mehalchick. Yes.
Senator Cruz. The Third Circuit concluded that, quote,
``Under clearly established Federal law, State courts have
considerable latitude to rule on the meaning of statutes.''
Yet, you construed the rule more narrowly, than the State
courts, to Spanier's benefit.
Jerry Sandusky was an evil man. And, Spanier, the ultimate
decision-maker, protected his own reputation at the expense of
the children.
Why did you deviate in your decision from clearly
established Federal law, particularly when it had the effect of
protecting such a man?
Judge Mehalchick. Senator, the acts of--the crimes of Jerry
Sandusky are beyond horrible. They're unspeakable. And, as a
member of the community, and as a mother of two children, they
are the worst nightmare for most parents. That was not absent
from my mind when I was looking at the case before me.
The issue before me was whether the petitioner, who I
looked at and treated as I would every habeas petitioner that
comes in front of me, received due process in State court. I
determined that there had been a violation of his due process
rights, in the use of the jury instruction that the State court
had, and the Third Circuit disagreed with me.
Senator Cruz. The Third Circuit did more than that.
Did the Third Circuit criticize your opinion for not only
admitting irrelevant precedents, but also, for not closely
analyzing the caselaw that you did cite?
Judge Mehalchick. I can't recall verbatim what the Third
Circuit opinion said. There were, as I recall, there were three
cases involved in that case, in terms of precedent. And, I
relied more heavily on one of them, than the other two.
Senator Cruz. Do you recall the names of those three cases?
Judge Mehalchick. I know one was the Bouie case. I can't
recall the names of the other two.
Senator Cruz. Well, here's what the Third Circuit said,
quote, ``The district court cited Bouie and Rogers, but did not
examine them closely, nor did it mention Metrish.'' Now, I do
find it a little bit amazing, you knew in this confirmation
hearing you'd get asked about this case.
Judge Mehalchick. Yes, Senator.
Senator Cruz. I find it actually quite remarkable that for
this hearing, you still don't even know the three cases the
Third Circuit said were critical to resolving the issue of law.
Judge Mehalchick. Senator, I reviewed 10 years of work in
preparing for this hearing. I don't recall those three cases
specifically.
Senator Cruz. So, you didn't have an inkling that you would
get questioned, and questioned pretty vigorously, about a
decision with egregious consequences that was unanimously
reversed by the Court of Appeals?
Judge Mehalchick. Did I have an inkling that I would be
questioned about the Spanier case? Yes, Senator, I did.
Senator Cruz. Let me ask you this. Did then-Pennsylvania
attorney general, and now Democrat Governor Josh Shapiro,
praise the Third Circuit's reversal of your opinion?
Judge Mehalchick. I am--I don't know what his comments
were, following the issuance of the opinion.
Senator Cruz. Well, I will point out that he submitted a--
he released a press release-- statement, by the Attorney
General Josh Shapiro on the U.S. Third Court of Appeals ruling,
reinstating the conviction of Graham Spanier. And you can read
that. And he was effusive in his praise.
There's a long, and unfortunate, pattern in this
administration of Joe Biden nominating individuals to serve on
the bench who have a repeated pattern of showing excessive
leniency to criminals, of releasing violent criminals from
jail, of releasing murderers from jail, of releasing rapists
from jail, of releasing those who've committed child sexual
assault from jail. I don't believe doing so is in the interest
of the American people. I think it is contrary to the views of
the constituents of just about every one of ours. But,
nonetheless, that pattern continues, and the consequences are
deeply harmful.
Senator Hirono [presiding]. I'd like to enter into the
record two letters in support of Judge--sorry, pronunciation--
Mehalchick. So, without objection, I'll enter those into the
record.
[The information appears as submissions for the record.]
And, before I adjourn, I would like to thank the panel, and
the questions for the record will be due to the nominees by 5
p.m. on Wednesday, August 2nd. And the record will likewise
remain open until that time to submit letters and similar
materials.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:33 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]