[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]