[Senate Hearing 118-352]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-352
NOMINATIONS OF SHERRI M. BEATTY ARTHUR,
RAHKEL BOUCHET, ERIN C. JOHNSTON,
RAY MCKENZIE, AND JOHN C. TRUONG
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOMINATIONS OF SHERRI M. BEATTY-ARTHUR,
RAHKEL BOUCHET, ERIN C. JOHNSTON, RAY MCKENZIE,
AND JOHN C. TRUONG TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________
JUNE 4, 2024
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-045 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RAND PAUL, Kentucky
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
LAPHONZA BUTLER, California ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
Claudine J. Brenner, Senior Counsel
Devin M. Parsons, Professional Staff Member
William E. Henderson III, Minority Staff Director
Christina N. Salazar, Minority Chief Counsel
Andrew J. Hopkins, Minority Counsel
Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
Ashley A. Gonzalez, Hearing Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Peters............................................... 1
Senator Butler............................................... 13
Senator Hawley............................................... 15
Senator Carper............................................... 18
Senator Marshall............................................. 20
Senator Lankford............................................. 23
Prepared statements:
Senator Peters............................................... 27
WITNESSES
Tuesday, June 4, 2024
Sherri M. Beatty-Arthur, to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court
of the District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Biographical and professional information.................... 30
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 51
Rahkel Bouchet, to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Biographical and professional information.................... 56
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 76
Erin C. Johnston, to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 77
Biographical and professional information.................... 79
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 96
Ray McKenzie, to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Biographical and professional information.................... 99
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 125
John C. Truong, to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the
District of Columbia
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Biographical and professional information.................... 129
Responses to post-hearing questions.......................... 152
NOMINATIONS OF
SHERRI M. BEATTY-ARTHUR,
RAHKEL BOUCHET, ERIN C. JOHNSTON,
RAY MCKENZIE, AND JOHN C. TRUONG
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary Peters,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Peters [presiding], Carper, Hassan,
Rosen, Blumenthal, Butler, Lankford, Hawley, and Marshall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETERS\1\
Chairman Peters. Today, we are considering five nominees to
be the Associate Judges on the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia; Sherry Beatty-Arthur, Rahkel Bouchet, Erin
Johnston, Ray McKenzie, and John Truong. Welcome to each of one
of our nominees, and to your friends, and your family members
who I know are joining you. We welcome all of you here to this
Committee, and congratulations on your nominations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appears in the
Appendix on page 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. That's a very sincere thank you for your
willingness to take on a very challenging role at the DC
Superior Court as a judge. The DC Superior Court functions as
the State-level trial court here in the nation's capital. The
court handles some of the highest case volumes in the country
and is strained further by extended vacancies on the bench.
Every day, judges in the superior court decide matters that
impact the freedom, the livelihoods and safety of individuals
and families all across the District of Columbia. Currently, 13
of the 62 seats on the current court are vacant, delaying
cases, and placing serious burdens on current judges.
This Committee has advanced seven superior court nominees
this Congress, but most are unfortunately still waiting to be
confirmed by the full Senate. I am glad that we will be voting
on two of these nominees, however, later today. Tanya Jones
Bosier and Judith Pipe both currently serve as magistrate
judges on the Superior Court, and have dedicated their legal
careers to serving the people of the District of Columbia. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these well
qualified nominees, and I hope we will be able to fill the
remaining vacancies for the court very soon.
To the nominees here today I look forward to learning more
about your qualifications, as well as your plans for serving
the superior court bench. It's the practice of the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in
witnesses. If each of you would please stand and raise your
right hand.
Do you swear the testimony that you give before this
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you, God
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. I do.
Ms. Bouchet. I do.
Mr. Johnston. I do.
Ms. McKenzie. I do.
Mr. Truong. I do.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. You may be seated.
Our first nominee is Sherry Beatty-Arthur, nominated to be
the Associate Judge on the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia. Judge Beatty-Arthur has served as a magistrate judge
from the Superior Court since 2020. Prior to her appointment as
a magistrate judge, she served as an administrative law judge
(ALJ) for the District of Columbia Office of Administrative
Hearings, and earlier in her career, Judge Beatty-Arthur held
positions at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the
Public Defenders Service (PDS) for the District of Columbia, as
well as private practice.
She received her Juris Doctor (JD) from Howard University
School of Law in 1998, her Bachelor of Arts (BA) from the
University of Maryland College Park in 1995, as well as a
Masters of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of
Maryland University College in 2011.
Judge, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed with their
opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF SHERRI M. BEATTY-ARTHUR,\1\ TO BE AN ASSOCIATE
JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. Thank you very much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Beatty-Arthur appears in the
Appendix on page 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Peters, Ranking Member Paul, and Members of the
Committee, I am humbled and honored to appear before you today
as you consider my nomination to be an associate judge of the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
I would like to thank the Committee staff for his time and
dedication and preparing for this hearing. I would like to
thank President Joseph Biden for nominating me. I would also
like to thank all the members of the District of Columbia
Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC), especially it's Chair,
the Honorable Marie Johns for recommending me to the White
House, and to the former Chair, the Honorable Emmett Sullivan
for his continued support. I would also like to thank Chief
Judge Anita Josey-Herring for her leadership and constant
encouragement and former Chief Judge Robert Morin for
appointing me as a magistrate judge to superior court in 2020.
I am very proud to say I am a native Washingtonian, and my
education and career has been in Washington DC or its nearby
jurisdictions, but my story really begins in rural Alabama and
North Carolina through my parents, Howard, and Wynell. My
father came to Washington after serving this country in the
U.S. Air Force (USAF) in the early days of Vietnam, and my
mother traveled here from Alabama the day after her graduation,
seeking new opportunities. My parents came here and made a good
life for me and my brother, Tony. They taught us that if we
worked hard in both school and our professional lives, anything
would be possible. Frankly, they gave up everything so that we
could have everything. My dad passed away in 2001, but I
continue to carry his many lessons with me, especially about
the importance of hard work. I would also like to thank my
mother, Wynell Beatty, who is here with me today, for her
never-ending encouragement and for constantly championing the
importance of my education.
I would also like to thank my brothers, Tony and Reggie, my
in-laws, Errol and Violet Arthur, who are also here with me
today. My sisters-in-law, Sheyna Arthur, and Justine Jaquez, my
brother-in-law, Justin Jaquez, my nephews Kevin, Isaiah,
Jeromy, and Jacob for cheering me on in all of my pursuits. I
must thank all of my friends who keep me in constant prayer.
I reserve a special thanks to my husband and best friend,
the Honorable Errol R. Arthur, who is here with me today. Errol
and I are birds of the same feather, and for 31 years he's been
a constant and unwavering support. Errol and I have walked
together in our lifelong pursuits in public service, and I
would not be here without him.
I also would like to say I am the proud mother of two
spectacular children. I am joined by my son, Miles Arthur, who
is a proud graduate of Morehouse College, and my daughter,
Layla Arthur, who is a rising senior at Spelman College.
It has been an honor and a privilege to serve at the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia, where I began my
career as a student attorney with DC law students in court
almost 25 years ago. Thereafter, I began a legal career
handling employment law cases at both the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and at the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission.
After that, I worked as a partner at Arthur & Arthur,
professional limited liability company (PLLC), where I
represented clients and family law, cases of small business
development and other civil matters. Thereafter, I served as a
Director of human resources (HR) for the Public Defender
Service for the District of Columbia.
After that, I served as an administrative law judge for
District of Columbia at the Office of Administrative Hearings,
where I heard thousands of cases in every jurisdiction,
including public works, unemployment, compensation, licensing
and enforcement, and rental housing. Since 2020, I have been a
magistrate judge for the District of Columbia, where I have
presided over, again, thousands of cases in paternity and
support, juvenile new referrals, and an abuse and neglect.
It has been an honor to serve the citizens of Washington,
DC throughout my career. I am humbled by this opportunity, and
if confirmed as an associate judge, I will continue to serve my
community.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have, and
thank you for your time.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Judge.
Our next nominee is Rahkel Bouchet. Judge Bouchet has
served as a magistrate judge for the District of Columbia
Superior Court since 2016, and is currently the deputy
presiding magistrate judge.
Prior to joining the bench, Judge Bouchet spent over 15
years in private practice focusing on family and criminal law.
She also previously served as the supervising attorney for the
Child Welfare and Family Justice Clinic at Howard University
School of Law from 2013 to 2015. Judge Bouchet received her JD
from Howard University School of Law in 1997, and her BA cum
laude from Howard University in 1993.
Judge Bouchet, wonderful to have you here. You may proceed
with your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF RAHKEL BOUCHET,\1\ TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Bouchet. Mr. Chair, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you
as you consider my nomination to be an associate judge of the
District of Columbia Superior Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Bouchet appears in the Appendix
on page 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am deeply grateful, humbled, and honored to appear before
you. I would like to also express my sincere appreciation to
the Committee Members and dedicated Committee staff for
considering my nomination. I would like to thank the District
of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, particularly as
former Chair Judge Emmett Sullivan for recommending me to the
White House, and I am grateful to President Joseph R. Biden for
nominating me for this position. I want to thank Chief Judge
Anita Josey-Herring for her support and leadership.
I am grateful to God for being here, and I would like to
begin by introducing my family, many of whom are here today
with me. My mother, Attorney Margo Bouchet, upon whose bold
shoulders I stand, for her guidance, love, and support. As a
single mother, she gave me the foundation of faith and taught
me to be a woman of integrity, to work hard and to strive for
excellence.
I want to acknowledge my maternal grandmother, Alma Pearl
Rivero, the matriarch of my family, who had dreams of being a
lawyer but never attended college. She passed away in December
2020. I am proud that she witnessed her dreams manifested in me
and my appointment to the bench as a magistrate judge. I know
that she's here in spirit.
I want to acknowledge my children, Dominique Jackson, a
determined young woman, and a proud third generation from my
alma mater, Howard University. She just completed her first
year at Howard University College of Dentistry. My son, Stephen
Jackson, a brilliant young man. He's a rising junior at
Morehouse College, majoring in film and television, and a minor
in Mandarin, and also a concentration in Spanish.
I was a single mother during most of their formative years,
and they have been my reason for being my inspiration and my
greatest source of joy and pride, and I love you both. I want
to also acknowledge my daughters, Erinn Fontno, a courageous
and driven young woman, and Laurynn Fontno, an extremely
talented culinary artist who have lovingly accepted Dominique,
Stevie, and me into their lives.
It has been such a blessing to watch my children blossom
into the strong women and young man they are today. I hope that
this moment is a testament to all my children as to what is
possible when you walk in faith and refuse to accept
limitations for yourself. I must thank my wonderful husband,
Eddie Fontano, an exceptionally talented artist, for his
unwavering support and unconditional love. Thank you for being
my best friend, an amazing husband, and a loving father to all
of our children.
I want to acknowledge my brothers Tony and Terry Williams,
my godparents Thomas and Mary Leonard, my aunt Sandra Bolden,
and my uncle Emil Rivera, who are here today in support. I
would also like to thank my extended family and dear friends
for their love and encouragement.
I must acknowledge former Chief Judge Satterfield for
giving me the opportunity to serve as a magistrate judge, and
former Chief Judge Robert Morin, for encouraging me to apply
for this position. I want to acknowledge my court family, in
particular, my magistrate judges colleagues. Without them, the
Superior Court would grind to a halt.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge our judicial
administrative assistants in the magistrate judges' chambers,
law clerks, and my colleagues on the bench who have mentored
and supported me throughout my career. I must also acknowledge
Attorney Gregory (AG) Copeland, whose advice and counsel set me
on a course that led to this moment.
I was born in Los Angeles, California, and initially moved
to the District of Columbia to follow in my mother's footsteps
and attend Howard University and Howard University School of
Law. In 2007, I returned to the District of Columbia to start
my private practice, appearing primarily in the DC Superior
Court.
During my years as a sole practitioner, I represented the
district's most vulnerable families, and I had the honor of
supervising the Child Welfare/Family Justice Clinic at Howard
University School of Law, overseeing talented law students, and
helping shape them into lawyers.
In 2016, I was appointed as magistrate judge with the DC
Superior Court, and I have had the honor of presiding over many
of the district's high-volume courtrooms in the family,
domestic violence, civil and criminal divisions, with the
necessary humility and integrity to ensure that the law is
upheld and that litigants have a fair and just experience.
I am confident that I am well equipped to take on the added
responsibility of being an associate judge because I bring
diverse experience as a litigator and magistrate judge.
Thank you for considering my nomination.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Judge.
Our next nominee is Erin Johnston. Ms. Johnston is
currently a litigation partner at Kirkland & Ellis, limited
liability partnership (LLP) in Washington, DC where she has
practiced since 2007. During her time at Kirkland & Ellis, Ms.
Johnson has handled a wide range of complex commercial matters,
including fraud, antitrust, securities, government
investigations, and appeals. She has also maintained a robust
pro bono practice representing many clients in the DC Superior
Court.
Ms. Johnston received her JD from New York University
School of Law in 2007, and her BA laude from the University of
California Los Angeles in 2003.
Ms. Johnson, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed with
your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF ERIN C. JOHNSTON,\1\ TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Ms. Johnston. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member Paul, and
members of the esteemed committee, thank you for considering me
for the role of associate justice of the DC Superior Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Johnston appears in the Appendix
on page 77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank your staff for their courtesy and
professionalism. Thank you to the Judicial Nomination
Commission, and especially its Chair, the Honorable Marie C.
Johns for recommending me to the White House. I would also like
to thank President Joseph Biden for nominating me. I am deeply
grateful to the judges of the DC Superior Court and Chief
Judge, Anita Josey-Herring for all of the generous
encouragement I have received throughout this process.
I am most grateful to my family. I am fortunate to have
extended family across this country. Here with me today from
California is my sister Stacey Gomez. She has been by my side
in every important moment in my life. She was the first to
envision my nomination to the judiciary, and I thank her for
her steadfast belief in me and my potential. I reserve special
thanks for my three children who are also here with me today.
My children are my inspiration. They make me better, and they
are my most fun cheerleaders every day.
My mother worked hard to provide me with the educational
opportunities available in this country that had not been
available to her. It was those efforts that enabled me to find
my way to the New York University School of Law. Since
graduating from law school, I have lived here in the District.
It has been a privilege to belong to such a vibrant community
and to raise my children here.
I have spent my professional career at the Washington D.C.
office of Kirkland & Ellis. I have worked on large scale
litigation involving complex and novel legal issues that
reflect the vast array of subject matters that touch our
courtrooms, from contract claims and torts, to statutory
interpretation and criminal matters. I have taken several cases
from inception through appeal, gaining extensive firsthand
experience with every stage of the litigation process.
The matters that have meant the most to me have been my pro
bono work. I have spent nearly 2,000 hours on pro bono work
over the course of my career, including handling several family
law cases before the D.C. Superior Court. In choosing this
work, I sought to represent families that otherwise would not
have had access to counsel during what was often the most
pivotal and challenging moments of their lives. I saw firsthand
the impact of the justice system on the residents of the
district. It would be a privilege to contribute to these cases
from the bench at the D.C. Superior Court.
The breadth and depth of my experience have prepared me
well for the wide range of matters that the D.C. Superior Court
faces each day. I have learned the value of hard work and
preparation, how to communicate effectively with people from
all walks of life, and the importance of the dignity of each
person involved in the judicial process. In my practice in
State and Federal courts across the country, I have seen judges
who embody a reverence for the rule of law, listen with an open
mind, move matters forward thoughtfully and effectively, and
lead with steady compassion. If confirmed, this is the kind of
judge I would endeavor to be. I would be grateful to serve the
district by dedicating myself in every case to the rule of law
and providing equal access to justice.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I look
forward to answering your questions.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Our next nominee is Ray McKenzie. Mr. McKenzie is currently
a principal at Miles and Stockbridge in Washington, D.C. where
he recently moved his practice after founding and running a
boutique law firm specializing in white collar defense and
compliance from 2019 to 2024.
Prior to starting his own firm, Mr. McKenzie served as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) in the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the District of Maryland from 2015 to 2019. Earlier in his
legal career, Mr. McKenzie worked at Skadden, Arps, in
Washington, D.C., and served as a law clerk on the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Prior to law school, Mr. McKenzie taught fifth and sixth
grade at public schools in Virginia--thank you, very important
and challenging job. We appreciate that. Mr. McKenzie also
received his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law
in 2008, and his BA and Master of Teaching from the University
of Virginia in 1998. He also earned his Master of Divinity from
Samuel DeWitt Proctor School of Theology at Virginia Union
University in 2003.
Mr. McKenzie, welcome. You may proceed with your opening
remarks.
TESTIMONY OF RAY MCKENZIE,\1\ TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. McKenzie. Chair Peters, Ranking Member, and Members of
the Committee, let me first begin by expressing my appreciation
to God for allowing me the opportunity to be here today,
appearing before you. Let me also sincerely thank each of you
on the Committee and the Members of your staff for your hard
work and dedication. Thank you for convening this hearing and
considering my nomination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. McKenzie appears in the Appendix
on page 97.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must express my heartfelt gratitude to the District of
Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission. It's Chair, the
Honorable Marie Johns, its Vice Chair, the Honorable Ben
Wilson, and its other members for their service to the citizens
of the District of Columbia, and for recommending me to the
White House. I also express my appreciation to the former
chairman of the JNC, Honorable Emmett Sullivan, who encouraged
me to apply to serve as an associate judge, as well as the
judges on the superior court bench and other courts who have
been sources of encouragement, information, and inspiration
throughout this process.
I also must share my profound appreciation and thanks to
President Joseph R. Biden for nominating me for this position.
It is a great honor to be nominated to the court of general
jurisdiction for the city where my wife and I have lived for
the last 16 years, and where we are raising our family. As a
young man growing up on the south side of Richmond, surrounded
by poverty and other challenges, but shielded and secured by
faith and love, I could not have imagined I would come to these
hallowed grounds as a judicial nominee. I am deeply and
profoundly honored and humbled.
I have the few of the most important people in my life with
me here today. My father, the Reverend Dr. Ray McKenzie Jr.,
for whom I am named, is here with me in the flesh. My mother,
Ingrid, who passed in 2000, is here with me in spirit. She and
my father instilled in me the importance of faith, service,
education, and perseverance, which have provided the foundation
for the person I am although she could not be here today.
I acknowledge my bonus mother, the Reverend Dr. Faith
Harris, who has been a loving and restorative partner for my
father and a supportive encouragement for me. I likewise am
grateful that one of my siblings, David, is here with me today.
I recognize the sacrifice he is taking to be here. I am
grateful for our shared experiences growing up and beyond, and
I know my late sister Rachel is smiling down on us from heaven.
I would like to also acknowledge my nieces and nephews,
Ana, Jess, Joshua, Malaka, Elijah, Alana, Halle, and Jason.
Additionally, I am very pleased to have with me my godmother,
Dr. Barbara M. Amos, whose counsel and guidance have been
invaluable to me and my family throughout the years.
I have reserved special honor and thanks for my wife,
Crystal, and my children, affectionately known as the ``Three
Es'', Ethan, Ella, and Elliot. They are here with us today.
Without Crystal's love, support, and occasionally her helpful
and constructive lectures, I would not be here today. Words
cannot express my gratitude to you and my love for you. The
joys and challenges of bringing our children and the patience
they continue to teach me have made me a better man. Relatedly,
I am pleased to have Crystal's mom, Sharon, who I call Mama
Hill, with me here today. Thank you.
Ultimately, I must express deep and sincere gratitude to my
judicial role model and mentor, Honorable James R. Spencer, who
hired me as a law clerk out of law school when he was the chief
judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia. Judge Spencer was the consummate trial judge who
demonstrated keen preparation, humility, and above all,
fidelity to the rule of law. I will endeavor to demonstrate all
these attributes should I be confirmed as an associate judge
for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
In closing, I must note that the law is a second career for
me. I spent the first seven years out of college as a public
school educator. Since deciding to take on this new adventure
in the law, I have had the blessing of serving in a variety of
roles that I believe have prepared me for this position. The
opportunity to now return to public service as an associate
judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is awe
inspiring. I will draw upon those very experiences as a Federal
prosecutor, defense attorney, and public school teacher in this
new role if I am confirmed.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I look forward to
answering your questions.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Our final nominee is John Truong. Mr. Truong is currently a
deputy chief in the civil division of the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of Columbia, where he has served since
2013. From 2008 to 2013, Mr. Truong served as assistant U.S.
attorney in the office's criminal division, where he prosecuted
misdemeanor and felony crimes in the D.C. Superior Court.
Earlier in his legal career, Mr. Truong also worked as an
associate at the law firm Morgan Lewis, and as a law clerk for
the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Mr. Truong received his JD from American University in
1997, his MA in 2003, and his BA from the University of
Southern California in 1993. Mr. Truong, welcome to the
Committee. You may proceed with your opening remarks.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JOHN C. TRUONG,\1\ TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Truong. Chair Peters, Ranking Member Paul, and the
Members of this Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today for consideration of my nomination to
be an associate judge of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia. I also want to thank your dedicated and hardworking
staff for the hearing today. I am tremendously grateful and
honored to be nominated by President Biden earlier this year
and by former President Trump in 2020. I also want to thank the
D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and its chairs, the
Honorable Marie Johns, as well as a former Chair, Judge Emmett
Sullivan, for recommend me to the White House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Truong appears in the Appendix on
page 127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can say with great humility and honesty that I would not
have attained my many accomplishments without Judge Ricardo M.
Urbina of the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, for whom I had the privilege to clerk. His mentorship
and friendship have guided me throughout my professional and
personal life. I also want to thank former U.S. attorneys
Phillips and Jessie Liu, and the current U.S. Attorney, Matthew
Graves. I am very fortunate to have served under each of these
extraordinary leaders.
I am very grateful for the support of my family and
friends. Some are here today, and some are watching this
hearing remotely. I am the proud husband of Sabrina Vasa, an
accomplished attorney, and an amazing mother. In fact, today is
also a very special day as it's Sabrina's birthday. Happy
birthday, honey. I love you. We are truly blessed to have two
loving daughters, four-year-old Priyanka, and two-year-old
Anjali, who are the most fun and funny tiny humans I know. They
are the love and joy of my life, and they are my greatest
achievement.
I also want to thank my younger brother, Kent, who is my
role model and my sister-in-Law, Dr. Bui, for their love and
support. I am a proud uncle of my niece, Grace, who is a rising
senior at George Washington University (GWU), and my nephew,
Ben, a rising senior in high school. They all travelled from
California to be here with me today. I reserve a special thanks
to my mother-in-law, Elizabeth Preeti Vickers, who is kind and
generous with her time and love, and is a dotting grandmother.
She traveled from Nebraska to be here with us today.
Ultimately, who I am as a person is because of my parents,
Brian Truong, and Mai Nguyen. My parents made a courageous
decision to separate our family to save our lives, not knowing
whether we would see each other again. My father and I escaped
from Vietnam, first in a fishing boat, landed in a refugee camp
in Hong Kong, and eventually immigrated to the United States. A
year later, my mother and my younger brother traversed that
same dangerous journey, and the entire family was thankfully
reunited as ``boat people'' refugees in this country. My
parents came to this country with little personal possessions
and did not know the language of our adopted home, but they
were filled with hope and faith. They instilled in me the value
of education, good work ethic, and perseverance. My parents
worked hard and made sacrifices so that I can be here today.
I have been a part of the D.C. legal community for more
than 25 years. I began as a Federal judicial law clerk and went
on to private practice where I worked in complex civil
litigation for 6 years. I later joined the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the District of Columbia.
During my 19 years as a civil and criminal assistant U.S.
Attorney, I gained a broad spectrum of legal experiences,
including five years when I worked exclusively in the criminal
division, where I prosecuted misdemeanor and felony crimes in
DC. In 2022, I was promoted to become a deputy chief for the
civil division, where I supervise and counsel assistant U.S.
attorneys in all aspects of Federal district court litigation.
It has been a great honor for me to represent the United
States to enforce the law and to defense its interests in
courts. I hope to now have the opportunity to serve the members
of this community in a new role, if confirmed, to be served as
an associate judge.
Thank you, again, for considering my nomination. I look
forward to answering any questions that the committee may have.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
There are three questions that this Committee ask of every
nominee. I am going to ask each of you just to briefly respond
with a yes or no. Other questions will require a more detailed
answer, but this is the straightforward part. Ms. Beatty-
Arthur, we will start with you, and then we will just work down
the table.
First question, is there anything you are aware of in your
background that might present a conflict of interest with the
duties of the office to which you have been nominated? Judge.
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. No, Senator.
Ms. Bouchet. No, Senator.
Mr. Johnston. No, Senator.
Ms. McKenzie. No, Senator.
Mr. Truong. No, Senator.
Chairman Peters. Second. Do you know of anything, personal
or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to
which you have been nominated?
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. No, Senator.
Ms. Bouchet. No, Senator.
Mr. Johnston. No, Senator.
Ms. McKenzie. No, Senator.
Mr. Truong. No, Senator.
Chairman Peters. Last, do you agree without reservation to
comply with any request or summons to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are
confirmed?
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. Yes, Senator.
Ms. Bouchet. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Johnston. Yes, Senator.
Ms. McKenzie. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Truong. Yes, Senator.
Chairman Peters. Great. Thank you.
Judge Beatty-Arthur and Judge Bouchet, as magistrate judges
on the D.C. Superior Court, you are all very familiar with the
impact of the pervasive vacancies that are on the court. Things
that I talked about in my opening comments. I would like each
of you, if you would please describe the challenges the court
currently faces due to these vacancies, and how you and your
colleagues have adapted. Ms. Beatty you want to start?
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. Sure. I have been on several high-volume
courtrooms, specifically paternity and support, which hears
thousands and thousands of cases. Then I moved on to juvenile
new arraignments, which are similarly situated. The idea that
you have to keep in mind is, even though the numbers are high
when people come to court, they don't, they are not concerned
about the high numbers. They plan for their day in court. I
must go there and give them their appropriate time.
I feel like the judge has the responsibility to set the
tone in the room, specifically. I always come to court
prepared. I let the parties know what my expectations are. I
don't typically allow for many continuances because
continuances, of course, slow down the court as well. The
challenge is that it does not matter how many cases there are,
business must continue. I am well versed on how to handle those
additional challenges. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Yes, Judge Bouchet.
Ms. Bouchet. I was appointed to the bench in 2016, and I
have been a magistrate judge for the past eight years. I have
presided over many of the high-volume calendars in the District
of Columbia, the civil, family, domestic violence, and criminal
division.
As a magistrate judge, we have played a substantial role in
addressing the vacancies. In an effort to address the backlog
to ensure that the court meets the needs of the District of
Columbia, I have found that coming to court prepared and
familiar with the record, understanding the issues that are
before the court affords me the time to allow the parties to
have a fair opportunity to be heard.
When you set expectations of the parties, especially the
attorneys, they come to court prepared as well. I am confident
that the experience and the skills that I have developed as a
magistrate judge will allow me to help the superior court as an
associate judge if I am confirmed. Thank you.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
My next question will be directed to Ms. Johnston, Mr.
McKenzie, and Mr. Truong. We will just start with you, Ms.
Johnston, and then move down the table. If confirmed, you will
decide matters that impact the freedom, the livelihoods of the
families and individuals that are going to come before you.
My question for each of you is, how will you ensure that
each person who comes before you has a meaningful opportunity
to be heard, and especially those who may not be represented by
counsel?
Ms. Johnston, you can begin, and then Mr. McKenzie, and Mr.
Truong.
Ms. Johnston. Thank you. I believe that it's important,
especially with unrepresented parties to have strong
communication skills, and to speak in straightforward terms and
avoid legal jargon when communicating with any litigants that
are appearing in court, but especially those who do not have
counsel with them.
I think that it's important for judges to come to each
hearing, fully prepared, and with a mastery of the facts so
that they can efficiently focus on the key issues, and provide
an effective resolution to the case for the parties that appear
before them.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. Mr. McKenzie.
Mr. McKenzie. It's very important to have good
communication skills in communicating, particularly, with pro
se litigants or litigants who are not represented.
I have had the great privilege over the last three or four
years to serve as an arbitrator for the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) in consumer matters. In many of those cases,
the parties are not represented, or one side is and one side
isn't.
What I endeavor in each of those cases to do is to
understand fully the law that applies, learn the facts from the
parties, and be very explicit and clear in what arguments are
important, what issues I will be considering in a particular
hearing. I think people need to be heard when they come to
court, and I will endeavor to do that if confirmed.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Mr. Truong. I share my fellow nominees' thoughtful
responses, Senator. I want to add that in addition, if
confirmed, I would commit to the ideas of due process, which
means that I would make sure that those represented and
unrepresented, too, have the opportunity to be heard.
Meaning, to explain myself clearly, make the courtroom
proceedings understandable to the lay person, and commit to the
idea of respecting the litigants, and for those unrepresented
appearing before me.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Senator Lankford has deferred his questions. Senator Butler
you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUTLER
Senator Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding the
hearing.
You noted in your opening remarks and our nominees have
spoken to the vacancies of the Superior Court of The District
of Columbia truly does impede the city's residents from
receiving timely access to justice, and I am glad that we are
here today to do some work to address that issue.
I am particularly proud to see that so many of these
exceptional nominees have California roots. Ms. Bouchet as a
native, Angeleno, Ms. Johnston as a University of California,
Los Angeles (UCLA) graduate, and Mr. Truong, University of
Southern California (USC). I am sure if we dug deep enough, we
find some California background in our other two nominees as
well. Needless to say, no matter what State or geography they
come from, they are incredibly qualified to meet the moment of
disseminating justice in the District of Columbia.
With that, I would like to focus my questions on the
caseload and the tremendous backlog that the residents of the
district are facing relative to experiencing justice in their
cases. We know that the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia serves about 671,000 people in Washington, D.C., and
the latest statistics show that overall new case filings are
increasing by 41 percent. Nearly 45,000 filings.
To that end, I would like to pose to each of you, and in
this instance, Mr. Truong, we will start with you and work our
way back. What do you believe are some of the biggest
challenges that you would face in transitioning to the D.C.
Superior Court, and what is your plan to ensure a smooth
transition?
Mr. Truong. Thank you, Senator. Your question really
identifies a critical issue confronting superior court at the
moment. If confirmed to serve as a judge, one of the things I
believe that can help with the many cases is to move cases
through the courtroom efficiently.
With that in mind, I commit to hard work and to prepare
myself as much as possible for each case, for each issue, and
to set expectations for the parties appearing before me. One of
those expectations is that if cases are scheduled for a
hearing, the hearing will go forward. I believe those
expectations will make sure that the case will move through my
courtrooms efficiently, and that should be one of the many
things to address the case backlog.
Mr. McKenzie. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I
believe that there are both external and internal factors that
judges can employ in order to work efficiently and move cases
through their courtrooms.
By that I mean, externally, communication with the lawyers
and the litigants about what is expected. I believe judges who
have robust standing orders that set forth clear expectations
for what will occur in the courtroom is important.
Those are external factors, in addition to what Mr. Truong
said, which is folks should have the expectation if a hearing
is set for a date, it moves forward. There, of course, are some
due process concerns, and you have to consider whether that's
good cause for not doing so.
I think, internally, judges have to hire the right staff
that are going to be hardworking, mission-focused on getting
justice to the litigants that appear before the court, and also
believe you can systematize some things such that they run
smoothly and efficiently through chambers.
Ms. Johnston. Senator, the backlog issue that you have
raised is certainly one of the biggest challenges that any of
the D.C. Superior Court judges are facing. I think it will be
very helpful that in my practice, I have had a lot of
experience dealing with heavy caseloads. I have developed the
management skills and demonstrated the work ethic that I
believe will be necessary to address this issue were I to be
confirmed to the bench?
Ms. Bouchet. Thank you, Senator. As a magistrate judge for
the past eight years, I have presided over many of the high-
volume calendars, and I think that that uniquely qualifies me
to step in the role of an associate judge.
As the deputy presiding magistrate judge, I am often called
upon to preside over multiple calendars in different divisions
in a singular day, and quite often many of the divisions within
a week. I come to court prepared, and I think that being
prepared and efficient are the most proactive measures to
address the cases. Thank you.
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the
question, and I agree with my colleagues as well. As a
magistrate judge, both Judge Bouchet and I both understand that
the magistrate judges have had to roll up their sleeves to
assist.
Quite frankly, the last two years, I was assigned to
juvenile new referrals, and the caseloads increased
substantially between 2022 and 2023, but they have to be heard
within 24 hours. It does not matter how tired I might be or how
long the day has been, I have to stay there and hear every case
because they have to come through my courtroom.
The idea of working hard is not foreign to me. I am
prepared to do that, and we will continue to do so.
Senator Butler. Thank you all for those thoughtful
responses. My last question I would like to direct to Judge
Bouchet and Mr. McKenzie. You both have backgrounds that
involve our young leaders, Ms. Bouchet at Howard University and
Mr. McKenzie as a classroom educator.
There are instances on the rise where our young leaders are
finding themselves interacting with our criminal justice system
and our court system at large. What lessons have you derived
from your prior experiences working with our young leaders that
prepare you to meet justice with them in this moment?
Ms. Bouchet. I was proud to serve as the supervising
attorney of the Family Justice Clinic at my alma mater, Howard
University School of Law. It was an opportunity to train the
young minds of tomorrow's leaders. When I see individuals who
appear before me, I hope to serve as a message of what is
possible for them. In my experience, supervising the students
has also allowed me to have a certain level of understanding
and compassion as I communicate with individuals when they
appear before me.
Mr. McKenzie. I guess the biggest takeaway, and I will keep
this brief, from teaching is showing my students they yearn for
boundaries and providing boundaries I think is very important.
When folks find themselves perhaps in the wrong position,
on the wrong side of the law, they need to know one, that I am
an inspiration. I have been where they have been, but also, I
am here to help them get back to the right path. They need
rules, and guidelines, and boundaries in order to find
themselves back on the right path.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Butler.
Senator Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Congratulations to the nominees. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Johnston, if I could start with you. You work at a large
corporate firm here in town, I think. Is that right?
Ms. Johnston. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. You, according to the materials you
submitted, you have represented among other clients, The Boeing
Company since 2013. Do I have that right?
Ms. Johnston. That's correct.
Senator Hawley. According to the same materials for much of
this representation, you served as the primary or the lead
counsel for Boeing. Is that correct?
Ms. Johnston. In certain matters I did.
Senator Hawley. Is that litigation still ongoing?
Ms. Johnston. No, it's not.
Senator Hawley. There's a case in particular I want to ask
you about. It's a case that featured breach of contract claim,
fraud claims, and trade secret claims by a company called
Alabama Aircraft Industries. They allege that Boeing stole
proprietary information when the two companies were working
together on a joint bid for an Air Force contract.
Now, a Federal jury had already determined that Boeing owed
this company $2.1 million for violating the bidding contract
and for breaching a non-disclosure agreement. Boeing had
previously in 2006, paid a $615 million settlement to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to settle claims that it had
illegally obtained competitors' information with lucrative
government contracts.
As I am sure you are aware, Boeing has been at the center
of major concerns about whistleblower retaliation, safety with
its planes. In fact, we have heard testimony right here in this
Committee about all of that. Here's what I am getting at.
Boeing has engaged in corporate behavior in a pattern going
back years now that shall we say, is less than model. Do you
have any thoughts about your representation of this company?
Any regrets, any concerns?
Ms. Johnston. My work as an advocate, I have been duty
bound to zealously advocate for my client's best interests.
That is what I have done. As a neutral judge, I am very mindful
that my role instead would be to apply faithfully and
impartially the law to the specific facts that appear before
me. That is what I would do.
Senator Hawley. No moral qualms at all?
Ms. Johnston. I believe that it has always been a strength
of mine to be able to see the shared humanity in every one of
my clients, no matter the issue. I understand that as a judge,
my role would be to fairly and impartially apply the law, no
matter the parties or the issue that is before me. That is what
I would do.
Senator Hawley. Shared humanity. This is a corporation
though, isn't it? It's one of the biggest corporations in the
world.
Ms. Johnston. It is.
Senator Hawley. One of the most profitable corporations in
the world. I assume you chose to represent them voluntarily.
You were not forced to represent Boeing.
Ms. Johnston. It was the case I was assigned to at my firm.
Senator Hawley. You continued to do it. You served as lead
counsel. I thought there's multiple pieces of litigation in
which you served as primary lead counsel for Boeing. Correct?
Ms. Johnston. There are multiple Boeing matters that I have
had.
Senator Hawley. Let me ask you about a different
corporation that you have represented. The 3M Corporation, huge
multinational conglomerate. In this case, the plaintiff was an
individual named Jonathan Vaughn. He was an Iraq war veteran.
He alleged that he had suffered hearing loss stemming from his
use of defective earplugs manufactured by your client. Vaughn
was awarded $2.2 million in that case.
Here's a report from the case. The jury decided that 3M's
earplugs were to blame for his current hearing impairment,
while also determining the earplugs were unreasonably
dangerous, according to the verdict form. 3M misrepresented the
quality of the earplugs and was negligent in their design.
The report goes on to note that at the time of this
verdict, this was the 9th of 15 cases against 3M to go against
them in litigation over these earplugs. Just any conclusions or
reflections on your involvement in that case?
Ms. Johnston. Senator, I have had a varied practice
handling cases that span the spectrum of legal issues and
representing a wide range of parties throughout my career. I
believe that the litigation matters and the variation in the
work that I have done has given me a very strong and versatile
litigation skillset and a comfort in the courtroom that would
serve me well, were I to be confirmed to be a judge on the D.C.
Superior Court.
Senator Hawley. So, you are not concerned is what I take
from it. You do not have any regrets about representing either
of these corporations in these various matters?
Ms. Johnston. I believe that I have had a strong litigation
practice throughout my career.
Senator Hawley. I heard that part, but I am asking if you
have any regrets, if you have any qualms. Sounds like you do
not, which is fine. Obviously you are a very talented person.
You have done terrific work. You were made partner at a very
early age, so you have a lot of skill. I am just trying to
figure out why you have chosen to use it and for these
particular clients.
Ms. Johnston. I do not have regrets about my career. I
believe that I have developed a strong litigation skillset that
would serve me well as a judge.
Senator Hawley. Fair enough. I have concerns. Obviously, I
do not love the representation. These big corporate clients,
these huge corporations, they have so much influence in this
capital. They have so much influence in our economy. They have
probably every law firm in America lined up to represent them.
I just think sometimes we have to ask ourselves, do these
people doing these kinds of things or ripping off people like
Jonathan Vaughn, I mean, do they really need our
representation? Obviously, every client's entitled to a
vigorous defense. Sure. I am an attorney myself. We still have
to ask ourselves as attorneys, should we be representing them?
Do we want to do that? Obviously, it's your judgment. I am not
suggesting you have done anything wrong. It's a 100 percent
your judgment and you did your job well, but I have to say, it
concerns me a little bit.
I am almost out of time, Mr. McKenzie. I just want to ask
you one thing really quickly here before my time expires. You
wrote a letter in 2021 asking then Vice President Pence to
invoke the 25th Amendment. I just want to quote you to make
sure I get this right. That's the removal from office
provision, the unfitness from office provision of the
Constitution.
You urged then Vice President (VP) Pence to invoke the 25th
Amendment against then President Trump to declare to the
leaders of Congress that, ``The President's unable to discharge
the powers of his office.'' You went on to say that then
President Trump, ``was unfit for office, and a reckless and
wanton threat to the Constitution.''
Does that still reflect your views?
Mr. McKenzie. Senator, I do want to correct the record. I
did not write the letter. I, along with hundreds of other
folks, signed onto the letter because we were concerned about
the events of January 6th.
Senator Hawley. OK. You signed the letter though.
Mr. McKenzie. Absolutely.
Senator Hawley. And does that still represent your views?
Mr. McKenzie. I signed a letter, Senator, that I was
concerned about January 6th.
Senator Hawley. Yes. You have not changed your view at all,
that the ex-President is unfit for office, reckless, and wanton
threat to the Constitution?
Mr. McKenzie. Under the judicial code of ethics, if that
matter were to come before me it would be inappropriate for me
to state my position at this time. I am precluded from stating
that position.
Senator Hawley. I am just trying to figure out if your
views changed. I think you have answered my question. I think
your answer is you stand by it. You signed it, you stand by it.
Is that fair to say? I am not trying to get how you rule on a
case. I am just trying to figure out--you signed a letter. I
just want to make sure that you have not changed your views.
I think you have answered my question. I think you said you
stand by it. Don't let me put words in your mouth, but is that
correct? You signed it, you stand by it. Is that fair to say?
Mr. McKenzie. It is correct that I signed that letter.
Senator Hawley. OK. We will leave it at that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
Senator Carper, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. Welcome to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, which a long time ago I had
the privilege to chair and to serve with these fellows and with
a guy named Tom Coburn that was, I think, your predecessor, if
I am not mistaken. We have a tradition of being a bipartisan
committee. We do not see enough of that in the House and Senate
these days, especially in the House. But hopefully you will see
it here today.
I want to thank our distinguished nominees for being here
this morning, for your willingness to serve on the D.C.
Superior Court. I am a recovering Governor. There are
recovering Governors. My staff, my colleagues would say I am
not really recovered.
In our State, in a lot of States, Governors nominate people
to serve on a variety of courts. That's true in Delaware. We
have advisory committees, you know, who recommend people for
us. But at the end of the day, in Delaware, the Senate ends up
taking the hand-off from the Governors.
It's a pretty good approach, and we try to do it in a
bipartisan way. We try to do it in a way that we do not waste
time and that we do not leave the people of Delaware without
the kind of judiciary that's needed to help people in their
lives, businesses, and so forth. I come to today's hearing with
that in mind.
But every time this Committee holds a hearing on DC
judicial nominees, my colleagues, they hear me share my concern
about extensive judicial vacancies on local DC courts. These
concerns persist to this day because too many vacancies still
plague the district courts. Last month, the chief judges of
both the DC Superior Court and the Court of Appeals, sent an
open letter, an open letter to the U.S. Senate, urging us to
immediately fill the vacancies on both courts.
Despite judicial nominees regularly passing out of this
Committee many with bipartisan support, as I said earlier,
there is frequently still months-long delay before they are
confirmed on the Senate floor itself. As my colleagues have
heard me say more than a few times, justice delayed is justice
denied.
Currently, there are six nominees to the DC Superior Court
that are still awaiting a vote on the Senate floor who have
passed out of this Committee. I am glad that Senator Schumer
has filed cloture on two of those nominees, and that these
nominees should be confirmed, and could be confirmed soon as
this week. Hallelujah.
With that said, only one DC judicial nominee has been
confirmed this entire Congress. I think that's disgraceful. I
think that's really disgraceful, and it's unacceptable that the
local DC courts have vacancies that last years because the
Senate fails to act in a timely way, the system as it stands,
is not working. We need to reform it.
I introduced, some of you know, the District of Columbia
Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act to do just that by
applying a 60-day congressional review period to DC judicial
nominees to streamline this nomination process. Faster
confirmation process in the U.S Senate would help with a
vacancy crisis and better equip local courts here to serve the
people of the District of Columbia.
It's with this in mind that I would move into my questions
for the nominees. First question. Again, going back to the time
I served as Governor of Delaware, considering potential
candidates to serve on Delaware's highly regarded Supreme Court
and court of chancery.
I look for a number of characteristic or attributes with
interest in sound, moral character. I was interested in
nominees with a complete knowledge of the law, a willingness to
listen to both sides of an argument, judicial temperament, and
the ability to make difficult decisions with sound reasoning.
Could each of you please take a minute to discuss the
importance of having these attributes as a judge, and how, if
confirmed, you would bring these qualities to the District of
Columbia Superior Court as an associate judge? Ms. Beatty-
Arthur, please.
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. Thank you very much. I think it's
critical what you are describing. We spent a lot of time today
talking about the backlog, but still being a good judge and
full of the appropriate demeanor and character is essential.
I think that when I think about, for example, my judicial
philosophy, it needs to be at the forefront that everyone
deserves an opportunity to be heard. But important with that is
the ability to objectively apply the law to the facts, and to
run a courtroom with dignity and respect.
Also, another idea that it's important to be mindful of is
that a lot of the people that appear in front of us are pro se.
It's important to be able to use plain language. It's to be
able to understand when they arrive at the court. I think all
of those attributes are critical to be a good judicial officer.
Senator Carper. Great. Thank you for that. Ms. Bouchet.
Ms. Bouchet. Yes. My judicial philosophy is grounded in the
principles of fundamental fairness, judicial integrity,
neutrality, affording the parties who appear before me, a fair
opportunity to be heard, to make their arguments, to also apply
the law faithfully and objectively to their cases, and to
render timely decisions.
When parties appear before me who are unrepresented, I take
the time to make sure that they are aware of the legal
resources that are available to them so that they can make
sound legal decisions as I am unable to provide counsel to
them.
Senator Carper. Thanks for those comments. Ms. Johnston.
Ms. Johnston. Senator, to me, the proper role of a judge is
to faithfully apply the law to the specific facts at hand, and
to make sure to always do so with a dedication to the rule of
law, with an open mind and impartiality, and with dignity and
respect for all of the parties involved in the litigation
process.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks. Mr. McKenzie.
Mr. McKenzie. Thank you, Senator. I think all of those
attributes that you mentioned in the lead-up of your question
are key.
People come to court because they cannot settle disputes or
they have gotten into some sort of trouble, but they need to be
recognized as humans and as people deserving of respect. I
think judges being able to do that is very important.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Truong.
Mr. Truong. Thank you, Senator. I share my fellow nominees'
insightful observations. I would like to add that, if confirmed
as a judge, I will commit to the ideals of impartiality, the
ideals of fairness, and I will approach each case with an open
mind, without prejudgment. I believe that is the ideals of
judicial philosophy.
Senator Carper. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I could have 10 more seconds there. I will never forget
a conversation I had with one of the people I was interviewing
for a judgeship in Delaware a long time ago. He invoked the
golden rule. He said one of the jobs of a judge is to make sure
that he or she treat other people in the courtroom the way they
would want to be treated. I think for me, when I am trying to
figure out what to do, I usually default to the golden rule,
and I think in this case it's a pretty good guide as well.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thanks to all of you for your
willingness to serve.
Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Marshall, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARSHALL
Senator Marshall. Thank you, Chair Peters, and welcome to
our nominees this morning.
My first two questions are yes/no questions. We are limited
on time. I hope you can give me a yes or no answer, and if you
do not, I will have to interrupt you if it's a long one. The
first one is, do you believe non-citizens are lawfully allowed
to vote in the District of Columbia elections? Do you believe
non-citizens are lawfully allowed to vote in District of
Columbia elections? We will just go down the row here, Ms.
Beatty-Arthur.
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. I am not familiar with the case law that
supports that, so I would not be able to give you an educated
answer with that.
Senator Marshall. Ms. Bouchet.
Ms. Bouchet. Yes, likewise. I am not aware of any law that
gives them the authority to vote. Thank you.
Senator Marshall. OK. Ms. Johnston.
Ms. Johnston. That is not an issue that I have studied, but
if it were to come before me as a judge, I would certainly
evaluate the relevant precedent to apply it to the facts at
hand.
Senator Marshall. Mr. McKenzie.
Mr. McKenzie. I am not aware of any law rule in that
regard, so I cannot say yes or no.
Senator Marshall. Mr. Truong.
Mr. Truong. Senator, similarly, I am not aware of the legal
issues on that.
Senator Marshall. OK. The follow-up questions. Do you
believe legal immigrants should be allowed to vote in DC
elections? Maybe we will start this way and go backwards. Mr.
Truong.
Mr. Truong. Thank you, Senator. Again, I am not aware of
mandates or DC law on that issue, so I am unable to answer that
question at this time.
Senator Marshall. Mr. McKenzie.
Mr. McKenzie. My decision on that, if it were to come
before me, would be based on the law and controlling precedent.
I am not aware of it as I sit here today.
Senator Marshall. Ms. Johnston.
Ms. Johnston. I am not familiar with any law on that issue
and would need to review that law before making a decision if
it were to come before me as a judge.
Senator Marshall. Ms. Bouchet.
Ms. Bouchet. As a sitting judge, I am not permitted to
speak as to policy. If the law was in place and a case came
before me, I would apply the law to the facts before me. Thank
you.
Senator Marshall. Ms. Beatty-Arthur.
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. Similarly, I am also a sitting judge,
and I am precluded from making any assessments as to the
appropriateness of that until it becomes a law.
Senator Marshall. My next question for Mr. McKenzie. This
last October, a young person testified before the House
Judiciary Committee about being the victim of an armed robbery
on the streets of DC. The criminal responsible was sentenced to
just one year in prison, despite the criminal having robbed six
victims and two businesses.
After his release, the criminal went on to rob two more
persons at gunpoint. I guess the bigger picture I am after
here, Mr. McKenzie is, what kind of message does that send to
criminals in DC, and if confirmed, will you be tough on
sentencing for violent repeat offenders?
Mr. McKenzie. Senator, I believe as a father of three, a
husband of one, public safety is a paramount issue. I am
concerned about crime everyday living in the city. What I will
commit to is, if I am confirmed to this position, I will take a
look at the facts of the case, look at the law that applies,
and I will impose a fair and just sentence as required by DC
law.
Senator Marshall. Ms. Bouchet, would you answer that
question, too? What kind of message does this send to criminals
in DC, and if confirmed, will you be tough on sentencing for
violent repeat offenders?
Ms. Bouchet. Crime and public safety are concerns of mine.
I was a single mother with young children, so I appreciate the
significance of it. I believe the role of the court to address
crime and public safety is to adjudicate the criminal cases
that are before them. I would, if confirmed as an associate
judge, apply the standard guidelines pursuant to our criminal
code.
Senator Marshall. I want to continue down this path of my
personal concern about crime in DC. I am concerned when my
family is here to walk more than a block or two from the
Capitol. I am concerned about my staff walking, the safety of
my staff, walking to and from the Capitol as well.
In 2023, here in DC, there were 274 homicides, 185 sexual
assaults, 959 carjackings, 1,400 assaults with deadly weapons,
6,829 motor vehicle thefts. Just over the last 18 months,
Members of Congress and their staff have been assaulted,
carjacked, robbed, and stabbed.
This last October, the Senate Sergeant of Arms (SSA) put a
bulletin out recommending that Senate staff drive with their
windows up, to avoid traveling alone, in order to prevent
getting carjacked in our nation's capital. Again, 7,000 car
thefts last year. That's quite a few each day.
In January, 2023, the DC Council passed a bill that rewrote
DC criminal code. It eliminated life sentences and got rid of a
mandatory minimum sentencing for every crime other than first
degree murder. Under this rewrite, the maximum penalty for any
individual convicted of using a gun to commit an act of
violence dropped from 15 to four years. I guess the question to
all, if you have the time, several of you mentioned this; what
is your level of concern for crime in the District, and what is
your role in here? Maybe we will start with Mr. Truong and just
go down if you got a second.
Mr. Truong. Thank you, Senator. As a father of a four-year-
old daughter and a two-year-old daughter raising a family in
Washington, D.C., the crime issue is a forefront issue in my
family. However, if confirmed as a judge in D.C., I am
committed to following the guidelines of the applicable laws
and impose a just consequence when the case is presented to me.
Senator Marshall. Thank you Mr. McKenzie, you basically
answered the question already, but anything to add?
Mr. McKenzie. No, Senator.
Senator Marshall. Good answer. Ms. Johnston, go ahead.
Ms. Johnston. As a resident mother raising three young
children here, I think the public safety in this city is one of
the most important concerns for the district. If given the
opportunity to serve as a judge on the DC Superior Court, my
role would be to swiftly and effectively endeavor to resolve
cases as quickly as possible so that the parties involved can
have an appropriate resolution.
Senator Marshall. Ms. Bouchet, you answered parts of the
question. Anything you would like to add?
Ms. Bouchet. I would like to thank the Committee for having
our nomination hearing. Our court needs more able bodies to
quickly adjudicate the criminal cases that come before it. I
think that that is the most powerful tool that we will have to
address public safety in the District of Columbia.
Senator Marshall. Ms. Beatty-Arthur.
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. I am in complete agreement with my
colleague, Judge Bouchet. That is the best way to assist, and I
will shout it from the rooftop. I am very proud to be a native
Washingtonian, but I would be absolutely remiss if I did not
address the crime problem.
Chairman Peters. Thank you.
Senator Lankford, you are recognized for your questions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD
Senator Lankford. Thank you. Thank you to all of you.
It's a long process to get to this day. It's a long process
past this day, as some of you have seen as well, and there's a
lot that's engaged in this. I really appreciate you being here.
I appreciate your families being here, and for all of you
introducing your family, it's great to be able to see a very
full room today with a lot of family members literally sitting
behind you as I am sure they have been behind you a lot.
Mr. Truong, I am tempted to ask every one of my questions
to you because of the smiling four-year-old over your shoulder
that every time the camera comes on you, it's fantastic. You
have no idea what's happening behind you, but it's awesome. You
will get a chance to watch the video of it later. I am tempted
to do that, but I am not going to ask you every single question
on it, but you have been here before on that. Thank you for
continuing to be patient as we go through this process.
Mr. Truong. Thank you, sir.
Senator Lankford. I really do appreciate that. For several
of you that mentioned your faith, and your own personal
journey, and your personal life, thanks for the transparency of
that as well to be able to make that very clear.
A couple things that I want to just be able to bring up.
Almost every one of you have either used the term or reaffirm
that justice delayed is justice denied, and have talked about
how quick you will move cases. That is one of the prime issues
for me. It's not just that we have someone there. That if
someone actually comes that--I will just say it, a lawyer who
did not do their homework, does not get a slap on the wrist
from the judge.
That the judge makes it very clear, we expect you to do
your homework because I did my homework, and the client that
you are representing needs justice and needs to be heard.
Avoiding continuances. Almost all of you have mentioned, and I
do appreciate that. I would tell you from our side of the dais,
that's extremely important, and is one of the things that we
would expect judges in the DC Court to actually do. Is to make
sure that everyone does their job, to be able to make sure
everyone has a fair day in court, and they have the opportunity
to be heard.
All of you have also mentioned things about fairness to the
individual. I would just reiterate. You did not have to say it,
but let me make it clear. Fairness to the victim is also
extremely important as well. To the potential victims that are
on the street that they also want to know that they are being
treated fairly also in the process.
There is an expectation when people come before you, you
are representing not only DC, but for the millions of visitors
that come through DC. That they have an expectation that there
are judges that are both not delaying cases, but they are also
equally and fairly applying the law to be able to protect every
person that's here, and to make sure everyone has their
opportunity to be able to heard in court. I do appreciate those
answers that several of you have already given on that.
I do need to drill down just to be able to clarify some
things as we have gone through several issues with our staff.
As we have talked through several things before on this, I want
to drill down on a couple things. Ms. Arthur--by the way, I
loved your opening statement on that. That was great.
Introducing your family, and your faith, and the journey that
you have had here. Getting a chance to be able to work down the
hall from your husband will be an interesting journey as well
on that. That will always be interesting; getting a chance to
be able to talk cases over dinner and what actually happens
next.
You had a statement that you made at one point that I
wanted just be able to give you the opportunity to respond to.
You were asked in a talk several years ago just about judicial
activism, and in that talk, you made the statement, ``I am
certain that in some unwritten place, in the back of my mind,
my race is affecting my decisions every day when I have cases
that involve Black people.''
So as a person, as just as an entity, I get that statement
and that perspective. You also made the same statement about,
``I did not really understand my blackness until I had a black
son.'' Now, I have several black friends, and they talk openly
on that journey with their sons and what is like, especially
with law enforcement interactions.
I want to give you an opportunity to be able to talk about
that. Because the reason I say that is if an Asian family is in
front of you in your court, if a Hispanic family is in front of
you in court, whoever it may be, I do not want that statement
to sit in front of them to think; I cannot get a fair hearing
because I am going to be treated differently than someone else
in the court.
I am going to give you an opportunity to respond to that.
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. Thank you, Senator. But I think what's
important to note, and I do not recall the exact language I
used at that talk, but I think what's important to note is that
judicial activism is never appropriate in the courtroom.
The statement that I did not really understand, I think
what you mentioned was the blackness until I had a Black son--
--
Senator Lankford. Right.
Ms. Beatty-Arthur. I think it pushed it to the forefront,
my discussion and thoughts, about being Black. But no matter
what, when I wake up tomorrow, I will be a Black woman. That is
still important to me, but who I am does not affect the how I
handle my cases.
Between the Office of Administrative Hearings and the
Superior Court, I have heard thousands of cases, and I push any
thoughts or ideas about race to the side because every person
that appears in front of me has an important moment regardless
of what their race or ethnicity is.
Judicial activism is inappropriate in the courtroom
setting. I understand your question, but that's not who I am as
a judge, and that's how I provide myself in the courtroom
setting.
Senator Lankford. OK. That's fair. Thank you for that.
Mr. Bouchet, several Members that are sitting in front of
me have had some political activity in the past and donations
that they have done personally on that. You are one of the
folks that's here that previous times, previous to being a
magistrate judge, you have political donations.
How do you separate your politics from being on the bench
and trying to say--everyone has a political perspective.
Everybody does. How do you keep those two things separate when
it is known what your political perspective is, but you are
also sitting on the bench trying to be fair and equal?
Ms. Bouchet. Thank you, Senator. Quite simply, I do not
consult my personal feelings when I am on the bench. I have, as
the deputy presiding magistrate judge, as a magistrate judge,
for the past eight years, I have presided over more than 27,000
cases and party individuals from all parties have appeared
before me.
My role is to consider the facts objectively, apply the
law, and render a timely decision. That's what I have done as a
magistrate judge. That is what I intend to do if I'm confirmed
as an associate judge. Thank you.
Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Johnston, Mr. McKenzie was asked a question earlier
about a letter that he had signed onto in the past. By the way,
there's a special place in heaven for sixth grade teachers. I
just have to tell you that as a former youth pastor myself,
there's no time in a boy's life more interesting than sixth
grade. For teachers that teach sixth grade, that's an
impressive time for you to engage on that.
Mr. McKenzie answered a question about a letter that he had
signed onto earlier. You have a letter that you had signed onto
right after the Dobbs decision. In that letter, it makes a
statement. ``The court has failed to uphold the promise, at the
very core, the Constitution, the promise of liberty,
dispassionate, fair, and equal treatment for all under the
law.''
Obviously, the court decision for the Supreme Court in the
Dobbs decision was really not a decision about abortion so much
as who should decide on that. It should that be in the court,
or should that be in the legislature, States, Federal, whatever
it may be?
I want to press down on this a little bit just on that
perspective, because I understand personal perspectives on
abortion. You and I probably have differences of agreement on
that, but it's the statement about the Court has failed to
uphold the promise of the Constitution when really the decision
was about the Court should not decide this, the people should
decide this. That's a different constitutional statement on it.
I want to give you the opportunity to respond to that.
Ms. Johnston. Thank you, Senator. My personal views would
not be a factor in my decisions as a judge, and I want to be
very clear that Dobbs is the law of the land. As a judge, my
role would be to faithfully apply all binding precedent,
including Dobbs, to any case that were to appear before me.
That is what I would do.
Senator Lankford. I appreciate it. It's not an unknown
statement on this, and I see them over time. I apologize. We
have had issues, for instance, in Washington, D.C., where there
were five children that were found, the bodies that were
identified, that looks like it was from a late-term partial
birth abortion, which is not legal in Washington, D.C. Those
bodies were identified.
Then there's been this ongoing conversation about what's
the follow-up. The abortion questions, not so much a question
that's only Federal, or local, or State, or for the district,
but it does come in criminal cases as well in trying to be able
to figure out what to do in a case, as we saw several years ago
in Philadelphia, where late-term partial birth, illegal
abortions were being done, and they had to be able to follow
through on that.
That could be a case coming before you as well.
Obviously, you are in Washington, D.C., and it will be
important that the law is applied no matter what the law is
based on what preferences are.
Ms. Johnston. Yes. As a judge, I would be duty-bound to
follow the law wherever it takes the case, and that is a duty I
would take very seriously.
Senator Lankford. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Peters. Thank you. I would like to thank all of
our nominees for joining us here today, and for your
willingness to take on these very important and challenging
positions. The nominees have filed\1\ responses to biographical
and financial questionnaires,\2\ and without objection, this
information\3\ will be made part of the hearing record with the
exception of the financial data,\4\ which is on file and
available for public inspection at the Committee offices.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The information on Ms. Beatty-Arthur appears in the Appendix on
page 30.
\2\ The information on Mr. Bouchet appears in the Appendix on page
56.
\3\ The information on Ms. Johnston appears in the Appendix on page
79.
\4\ The information on Mr. McKenzie appears in the Appendix on page
99.
\5\ The information on Mr. Truong appears in the Appendix on page
129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing record will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow,
June 5th, for the submission of statements and questions for
the record.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]