    [Senate Hearing 119-138]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-138

                        CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
                                 APPOINTMENTS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 26, 2025
                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-119-6
                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov
                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-325                  WASHINGTON : 2026

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman

    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont
    ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

                 Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
             Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     1
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     3
    Lee, Hon. Michael S..............................................     5
    Cruz, Hon. Ted...................................................     5
    Hawley, Hon. Josh................................................     7
    Schmitt, Hon. Eric...............................................     8

                                    NOMINEES

    Dhillon, Harmeet.................................................    12
        Questionnaire................................................    47
        Responses to written questions...............................    99
        Additional materials.........................................   153

    Reitz, Aaron.....................................................    11
        Questionnaire................................................   171
        Responses to written questions...............................   199
        Additional materials.........................................   274

    Sauer, Dean John.................................................     9
        Questionnaire................................................   284
        Responses to written questions...............................   323
        Additional materials.........................................   368

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................   377

                        CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL
                                 APPOINTMENTS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
    Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Cornyn, Lee, Cruz,
    Hawley, Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt, Moody,
    Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono,
    Booker, Padilla, Welch, and Schiff.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. Good morning, everybody. We welcome you
    to this hearing considering the nomination of John Sauer as
    Solicitor General, Harmeet Dhillon to serve as Assistant
    Attorney General for Civil Rights, Aaron Reitz to serve as
    Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy.
        We're going to call on--this is how we'll run the
    Committee. We're going to call on Senators Lee, Cruz, Hawley,
    and Schmitt to introduce the nominees. After that, the nominees
    will have a chance to give an opening statement. Following that
    from the nominees, we'll proceed to a single 5-minute round of
    questions. I ask the Members to do their best to adhere to that
    limit.
        Our three nominees have been tapped to serve in important
    roles in the Justice Department. We congratulate all of you on
    your nomination. If confirmed, your work will impact the lives
    of millions of Americans, as you know. Each of you has
    impressive qualifications, and we're looking forward to hearing
    from you. We thank your family and friends for coming today to
    be with you, and I'm sure they're very proud of you.
        I've said many times that the Department of Justice is at
    an inflection point. Over the last 4 years, public trust in the
    Department has declined, and many Americans feel like the
    justice system isn't working for them. If confirmed, we expect
    you to work with Attorney General Pam Bondi to fulfill her
    promise to turn things around.
        Mr. Sauer, you're particularly well qualified to serve as
    the Nation's chief appellate lawyer. You started your career
    clerking for Justice Scalia, a legal giant, as we know. Justice
    Scalia spent his life teaching lawyers to faithfully interpret
    the Constitution and laws according to original meaning. I have
    no doubt that you learned this lesson very well.
        After clerking and a stint in private practice, you left DC
    behind to go home and serve as an assistant United States
    attorney in Missouri. You worked diligently to prosecute
    criminals and keep communities safe. In 2017, you joined the
    Missouri attorney general's office as the solicitor general,
    where you served under two Members of this Committee, Senators
    Hawley and Schmitt.
        Serving as the State's chief appellate officer during the
    COVID pandemic and across two Presidential administrations,
    you--undoubtedly prepared you well for the role that you'll
    walk into after confirmation. There's a lot of work to be done
    defending our Nation's laws, and it seems like you're well
    prepared.
        Ms. Dhillon, you're one of the Nation's foremost experts on
    civil rights. Your journey started a long ways from here when
    your family immigrated from India. You went to Dartmouth at a
    very young age of 16, I'm told, and then went to law school at
    the University of Virginia. Throughout your career, you never
    shied away from unpopular but just causes.
        You served as the director of an ACLU chapter after 9/11--a
    group many on my side are often skeptical of. You also started
    your own law firm and founded a nonprofit. You've litigated
    some of the most important cases on free speech, religious
    liberty, voting rights, and discrimination.
        Discrimination is wrong. Common sense ought to tell us
    that. Our Constitution and our Civil Rights Laws do not
    tolerate discrimination on the basis of race, as the Supreme
    Court recently said, in Students for Fair Admissions.
    Unfortunately, the previous administration not only allowed
    discrimination to take place but openly encouraged it.
        Under the name of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, that
    administration imposed a nationwide regime of discrimination,
    and the Civil Rights Division completely failed to enforce our
    Nation's laws.
        Our President Trump has put an end to this, and, if
    confirmed, I know that you will work to help him execute his
    promise. Americans don't pick winners and losers based on color
    of skin, sex, or the name of their God. Ms. Dhillon, you've
    fought for everyone to be treated equally. You fought against
    colleges shutting down free speech for political reasons,
    against States restricting freedom of religion, and against Big
    Tech companies engaged in censorship.
        You've won many victories defending freedom and our
    constitutional rights, and, if confirmed, you will need your
    continued--we'll need your continued leadership to protect the
    civil rights of all Americans.
        Our side of the aisle doesn't spend much time talking about
    people's personal characteristics. We care about character, and
    we care about merit. But in addition to your qualifications,
    your background makes you particularly suited to return the
    Justice Department to its proper role of enforcing our Civil
    Rights Laws and ending discrimination. You're an immigrant, a
    religious minority, a woman, a business owner, a civil rights
    leader, an accomplished lawyer, and I've learned that also you
    do a lot of knitting.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Grassley. You're an example of what is great about
    America. Mr. Reitz, I'm to you, now. You have an impressive and
    dedicated career of service to our country. You attended the
    college of Texas A&M University on an ROTC scholarship and
    honorably served our country as a Marine, including a tour in
    Afghanistan.
        Upon your return from Afghanistan, you attended law school,
    University of Texas, where you excelled. After a time in
    private practice, you decided to serve your country again. You
    clerked for the now-Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.
    Then you ran for a seat in the Texas House of Representatives
    and campaigned on issues you believed in. You continued gaining
    legal experience during this time in private practice.
        You eventually joined the office of the attorney general of
    Texas, as deputy attorney general for legal strategy. In that
    role, you were involved in some of the office's most impactful
    litigation during the Biden administration. You fought to
    secure the Border, to hold Big Tech accountable, to protect
    integrity at the ballot box, and to promote conservative social
    values.
        Today, you continue to serve Texas and your country, as a
    member of Senator Cruz's staff. You're currently his chief of
    staff, and I think I won't offend my colleagues when I say that
    this is no easy job.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Grassley. This is particularly true because you
    continue to serve in the Marine Corps Reserve, where you
    actively drill with your unit and hold the rank of major. Your
    relentless work ethic and love of country are obvious.
        In short, for all three of you, these nominees before us
    have impressive careers and life stories, and I look forward to
    hearing from them today. Now, Senator Durbin.

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

        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley. I'm going to
    make a brief opening statement here, and it relates to an issue
    which is very personal to me and to some Members on the dais,
    here.
        You are gathered in this room today for an important
    hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. When you entered
    this complex, you were protected--from the first step you took
    until this moment--by the Capitol Police. These are men and
    women, some in uniform, some not, who are risking their lives
    to keep you and me safe. We should never, ever take that for
    granted.
        Those of us who were witness to the January 6 riot here in
    the Capitol have an experience we'll never forget. You've seen
    it. You can't miss the videos that have been played over and
    over again.
        As a result of that riot on January 6, 4 police officers
    died, over 140 were assaulted. Sixteen hundred people were
    arrested and convicted of crimes that day. For those of us who
    witnessed that occurrence, we know what was at the heart of it.
    It was an attempt by a mob to take control of the Capitol while
    we went through the constitutional exercise of counting
    electoral votes.
        It could've been worse, I guess, but to think that we had
    that happen in the United States Capitol is almost unthinkable.
    Imagine if you just heard the news that the House of Commons
    and Parliament in London had the door broken down and been
    overrun by a mob. You would've said to yourself, well, that's
    impossible. Not in London. Not in England. For goodness sakes,
    it couldn't happen.
        It happened here, and we lived it. We ended up postponing
    the session of the Senate and House to complete the
    constitutional duty until later in the evening, and we cleared
    these rioters out of the Capitol.
        I tell you that because the President recently announced
    that they weren't, in fact, guilty of any crime. They were
    being assaulted. Assaulted by whom? By the Capitol Police? By
    the National Guard that was here? That's an incredible
    statement, and it's on its face patently false and insulting to
    the men and women who protect us every single day.
        The bottom line is, they are not stopping, now that they've
    been released by President Trump's pardon--they're not stopping
    in their assault on the Capitol. They are now revisiting the
    Capitol, holding press conferences, harassing the men and women
    in uniform who protect us here every single day.
        This has got to come to an end. Democrats and Republicans
    have to stand up for the men and women who are risking their
    lives to keep us safe every day and to say to these people who
    were pardoned by President Trump, please take your press
    conferences someplace else. We don't want them here in this
    Capitol. I think it's essential that we move in that direction
    and do it quickly. If we care for these men and women, it's
    time we speak out against this insulting, harassing conduct
    when it relates to Capitol policemen.
        Let me also say that I'm concerned, as I have been in the
    past, that we are seeing some transformation of law enforcement
    in this country that most people don't imagine. There was a
    time when the Federal Bureau of Investigation had one political
    appointee.
        For 50 years, the Director was the only political
    appointee, given a tenured term and expected to be at least
    mindful of his or her responsibility under the Constitution.
    The choice that was made by this Committee and the Senate and
    ratified by the President has now put a new person in charge:
    Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel is proceeding with this effort to cleanse
    the ranks of the FBI of people who have shown any conduct, in
    the past, disloyal to Donald Trump.
        Honest to goodness, that's the first time in history we've
    gone through this, and to think that we're going to see a
    loyal--politically loyal ranking in the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation is an embarrassment to this Nation. And, really,
    it's hard to imagine that's happening.
        Sadly, we're seeing the same thing happening in the
    military. I don't think that's going to be good for this
    country at all. Those ranks should be apolitical, top to
    bottom. And I think we've got to work hard to make that happen.
    I'll be asking these witnesses what their responsibilities are
    and their reaction is to my statement. I yield.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now we go to Senator Lee for
    an introduction.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL S. LEE,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

        Senator Lee. Thank you so much, Chairman Grassley and
    Ranking Member Durbin, and to all of my colleagues. It really
    is an honor to introduce Harmeet Dhillon, who's been nominated
    by President Trump to serve as the Assistant Attorney General
    for the Civil Rights Division. If confirmed, she will serve
    every American with integrity and dedication.
        Harmeet is a fearless, longtime defender of constitutional
    rights, with decades of litigation experience in civil rights
    advocacy. She's taken on some of the toughest cases, those that
    many others feared, standing up for the forgotten and holding
    power to account at every step.
        Her journey is one of perseverance. When Harmeet was 2
    years old, her family emigrated from Punjab, India. By the age
    of 16, she was attending Dartmouth College, followed by law
    school at the University of Virginia, where she excelled in
    every way. After clerking on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
    Fourth Circuit, Harmeet gained invaluable experience at top law
    firms before soon going on to found her own incredibly
    successful practice.
        As the founder of the Dhillon Law Group, she's one of the
    Nation's most respected attorneys, known for her unwavering
    commitment to justice, free speech, civil rights, and election
    integrity. She litigates complex cases with precision and takes
    on powerful institutions with fearless dedication to her
    clients.
        Harmeet's championed government accountability, election
    integrity, and civil liberties. Her 3 years on the ACLU board
    demonstrate her dedicate to principle over partisanship. Judges
    routinely commend her for her meticulous courtroom strategy.
    Colleagues admire her tenacity. And even adversaries can't help
    but admire her resolve and professionalism.
        Additionally, she's been a beacon of hope for a number of
    persecuted communities. As a true leader in the Sikh community,
    she's fought against post-9/11 discrimination and religious
    intolerance, ensuring that no one is denied their basic rights
    based on their faith, their background, their appearance.
        Harmeet's career embodies principle over politics. Whether
    challenging unconstitutional laws, holding institutions
    accountable, or fighting for fair elections, she leads with
    integrity, fearlessness, and an unshakeable belief in the rule
    of law and the importance of sticking with the Constitution.
        Harmeet Dhillon truly is an inspiration. She embodies the
    traits and the characteristics that are needed to help her
    succeed in this new role to which she's been appointed. Her
    career reflects conviction and the relentless, unapologetic
    pursuit of justice, no matter the cost. I urge every Member of
    this Committee to support her, and I look forward to voting for
    her enthusiastically on the Senate floor. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Now we go to Senator Cruz.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to
    introduce to this Committee my friend Aaron Reitz. Aaron has
    been nominated to be the Assistant Attorney General for the
    Office of Legal Policy of the Department of Justice. As
    Chairman Grassley observed, he is currently my chief of staff
    and has the virtually impossible job of keeping me out of
    trouble.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz. In that regard, he has failed spectacularly.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz. But it may not be possible to succeed, and so
    he is fleeing, instead, to the Department of Justice----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Where I have absolute confidence
    that he will diligently and vigilantly defend the rule of law
    at the Department of Justice.
        Before I get into Aaron's professional background, I want
    to note that he's here with his beautiful wife, Meredith, with
    two of his four kids. So, William and Caroline are both sitting
    behind their dad, and at home, Cecilia and Georgia are the
    younger ones, I'm sure watching on TV, unless they've fallen
    asleep or are doing something else that has distracted them.
        I want to take a minute just to walk through Aaron's
    career, because he has excelled at everything he has put his
    hand to. He went to Texas A&M. He is a proud Aggie. His wife,
    Meredith--both he and Meredith are from San Antonio. She went
    to the University of Texas, so they are a divided household and
    yet a happy one, and somehow they managed to work through the
    return to the A&M Texas football game that occurred this year.
        He went on to serve as an officer in the Marine Corps. He
    spent 5 years on active duty, deployed to the Helmand Province
    of Afghanistan, where he was embedded with the Afghan National
    Army, leading logistical operations in one of the most
    dangerous regions of the world. To this day, he remains in the
    Marine Corps Reserve, where he holds the rank of major.
        He left active duty, went to the University of Texas at
    Austin, where he served as president of the Federalist Society
    and editor-in-chief of the Texas Review of Law & Politics.
    After that, he went into private practice and then clerked on
    the Texas Supreme Court. And then he returned to public
    service, going to the Texas attorney general's office, where he
    was the deputy attorney general for legal strategy. And in that
    role, he was the driving force in many of the most
    consequential legal battles for my home State.
        For the last 2 years, he's been my chief of staff, and he's
    demonstrated a terrific ability to, number one, fight for my
    legislative agenda, including efforts to secure the Border, to
    protect children from online harm, to grow our economy, and to
    bring justice to victims of violent crime. He also has earned
    the respect of his colleagues, the chiefs of staff of each of
    us around this dais.
        He has worked well both with Republicans and Democrats. He
    has brought people together behind a shared mission. And he now
    has been nominated to lead OLP at the Department of Justice.
    And I have every confidence that he will do that job with great
    distinction and he will serve as a critical right hand to
    Attorney General Pam Bondi. And I'm proud to introduce Aaron,
    and I would encourage all of you to vote to confirm him.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Hawley.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSH HAWLEY,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's my
    privilege to introduce John Sauer, my friend, my former
    colleague, who has been nominated for the position of Solicitor
    General of the United States. I've known John for years and
    years now. He is a proud Missourian going back many
    generations. John's career has already been incredibly
    distinguished, and the Chairman mentioned some of his
    accolades.
        Let me just walk through a few of them, beginning with his
    education. He has a bachelor of science degree from Duke
    University. He was a Rhodes Scholar. He has an M.A. from the
    University of Notre Dame and a J.D. from Senator Cruz's law
    school. We'll try not to hold any of that against him.
        Senator Cruz. I apologize for that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hawley. He's--after graduating and completing his
    education, he clerked for Judge Michael Luttig of the fourth
    circuit and then, as the Chairman mentioned, for the great
    Antonin Scalia, who I continue to believe is the most
    influential Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the 20th
    century, and he served there with distinction.
        John then came back to his native St. Louis and was for 5
    years a Federal prosecutor, where he prosecuted violent crimes,
    white collar crimes, and more. And then he briefly--in between
    that and joining the Missouri attorney general's office, he
    founded a small litigation firm where he represented all manner
    of clients.
        And then our paths really began to intersect in 2017. I was
    elected attorney general of the State of Missouri, and the
    Missouri attorney general's office, at that time, did not have
    an office of the solicitor general, and I thought it was
    important to create one, given the volume of appellate cases
    that we were facing. And I couldn't think of anybody better, of
    all the attorneys that I've had the privilege of working with,
    than John.
        So, I remember I went to John--and this may say something
    about my recruiting habits. You'll like this, Senator Kennedy.
    I went to John, and we met at a Cracker Barrel--and we sat down
    at a Cracker Barrel and, over chicken fried steak----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. I said to him, John, you have
    the ability and the record to be Solicitor General of the
    United States, but would you at least consider coming to be
    solicitor general of the State of Missouri?
        And to my great delight and, I think, to the great benefit
    of the State of Missouri, he said yes and served as my
    solicitor general for 2 years and also as my first assistant in
    the office, overseeing all of our criminal and civil
    litigation, including record numbers of criminal convictions as
    well as an astounding win rate in the appellate courts.
        He's argued multiple times in the Federal courts, the
    United States Supreme Court, of course, the Missouri courts,
    and handled all of that with the greatest of aplomb and
    professionalism. He went on to serve for a number of years,
    another 4 years, I believe, with my successor and now my good
    friend and colleague Senator Schmitt, who will say more about
    that in a moment.
        But that reminds me, John, here's an opportunity to prepare
    for your first question. I'll just give it to you now so you
    can think about it. Which of the attorneys general on this dais
    was your favorite, and why is it me?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hawley. So, you can be thinking on that. John has
    served his State with the greatest of distinctions. He has
    served his country with the greatest of distinctions. I do not
    know a better lawyer in private practice, in public practice,
    Federal prosecutor, name it. Go down the line. I do not know a
    better lawyer in this country than John Sauer. I'm delighted to
    see him here today, and I'm delighted to support your
    nomination. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC SCHMITT,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

        Senator Schmitt. Only because of seniority did you get to
    ask that question first. It was coming.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor and
    privilege to introduce the smartest lawyer I've ever met,
    President Trump's nominee to be Solicitor General of the United
    States and my former solicitor general of Missouri, John Sauer.
        A born-and-raised Missourian, John is a man of deep
    personal faith, a fellow Catholic, a devoted husband to his
    wife, Ann, and father to his five children. As a young man,
    John ventured east to attend Duke; Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar;
    Notre Dame; Harvard Law School. I mentioned it.
        After graduating magna cum laude from Harvard Law, John
    clerked for Judge Michael Luttig, as Senator Hawley mentioned,
    and the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia. After clerking for
    Justice Scalia, he worked at Cooper & Kirk, one of the Nation's
    most influential law firms, was a Federal prosecutor in the
    Eastern District of Missouri, and started his own law firm.
        During my time as attorney general of Missouri, John was my
    solicitor general. As solicitor general of Missouri, John's
    performance was nothing short of exemplary. He demonstrated the
    ability to win on behalf of the American people. John is a
    home-run choice to be our Nation's Solicitor General. John
    possesses a very rare combination of brilliance, unparalleled
    work ethic, and humility. I don't know of many people who
    combine all three of those traits, but John certainly does.
        As my solicitor general, he defended the God-given rights
    of not just Missourians but all Americans, litigating numerous
    cases during the COVID era, helping the office beat back the
    authoritarian forces who were seeking to shut down the United
    States of America, impose mask mandates on young children, and
    make Americans choose whether to take a vaccine or their
    livelihoods. He also helped hold the People's Republic of China
    accountable for their actions during COVID-19.
        He helped the office take on Big Tech giants who, in an
    unholy alliance with the Biden administration, colluded to
    censor and silence dissent in our country. Missouri v. Biden,
    later Murphy v. Missouri, stands as one of the most important
    First Amendment cases in our Nation's history.
        Together we brought the student loan debt forgiveness case
    and won at the Supreme Court. He has defended the unborn, the
    rule of law, our Constitution, and, for the last few years, has
    been President Trump's legal champion while the President
    defended himself from the most weaponized and politicized
    prosecutorial onslaughts in American history.
        So, now and once again, he is called to venture back east,
    this time by President Trump to be our Solicitor General of the
    United States. As Solicitor General, John will be the Nation's
    chief courtroom advocate for the high-stakes, high-profile
    cases that will arise over the years to come in that courtroom.
        He will be the man in the legal arena arguing before the
    Supreme Court on the most important cases that come before it.
    He will be the people's and the Constitution's legal champion.
    His professional track record demonstrates the skill and
    aptitude to win these most important cases.
        On a personal note, I can think of no one--no one I trust
    more to do the right thing every single time. He is a man of
    great virtue. I can personally attest to his prudence,
    fortitude, and temperament--temperance, as well. He is honest,
    hardworking, and as I said earlier, quite simply the smartest
    lawyer I've ever known. I can think of no one better suited to
    fight for justice on behalf of the people of the United States
    in the biggest courtroom in the country. I urge my colleagues
    to support his nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now would you please, the
    three of you, stand and take this oath?
        [Nominees are sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. Let the record show that they all
    responded. Now be seated, please, and then you can give your
    opening statements: Mr. Sauer, Mr. Reitz, and Ms. Dhillon. And
    you have an opportunity to introduce family and friends if you
    want to. Please go ahead, Mr. Sauer.

             STATEMENT OF DEAN JOHN SAUER, NOMINEE TO SERVE
               AS SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

        Mr. Sauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Senators
    Hawley and Schmitt, for those kind introductions, which I'm not
    sure I fully deserve. Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member
    Durbin, thank you for the opportunity to address this
    Committee. Thank you to the Committee Members for taking the
    time to meet with me and to discuss the thoughts and concerns
    about the challenges facing our Nation. If I am confirmed, I
    will look forward to working together with you in Attorney
    General Bondi's administration to address these challenges.
        Today, I have so many other people to thank. First and
    foremost, I offer my humble thanks to President Trump for this
    nomination and the great vote of confidence that it reflects.
    This nomination and the privilege of representing President
    Trump over the past 2 years have been the greatest honors of my
    professional life. Next, I express my deep gratitude to my
    former bosses, Senator Hawley and Senator Schmitt, both of whom
    I love and adore equally----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. For giving me the opportunity to
    serve as the solicitor general of the great State of Missouri.
    Senators, your leadership and mentorship in that office has
    meant the world to me. In addition, I thank my family and
    friends, many present here today, for their unswerving love and
    support throughout this process. Without that support, I could
    never have arrived at this moment today.
        Indeed, as I sit here today, I marvel at how the American
    dream could take a kid from the Midwestern heartland and give
    him the opportunity to sit before this august Committee and
    address some of the greatest legal challenges facing our
    Nation. In my legal career, I have been blessed with a long
    string of amazing opportunities. Each of these drove home to me
    in a unique way the importance of fidelity to the Constitution
    and to the rule of law.
        For example, as the Chairman mentioned, shortly after law
    school I had the privilege of clerking for Justice Antonin
    Scalia of the United States Supreme Court. Justice Scalia was
    one of the greatest defenders of the Constitution and the rule
    of law in our Nation's history, and his example has inspired my
    entire career. His insistence on fidelity to the original
    public meaning of the Constitution and the plain and ordinary
    meaning of statutes have provided the guideposts to my approach
    to legal analysis ever since.
        Not long after that, I received the opportunity to serve in
    the U.S. Department of Justice as an assistant U.S. attorney
    for the Eastern District of Missouri, where I prosecuted
    violent crimes and white collar crimes, among other matters. In
    this role, I was inspired by the Department of Justice's
    commitment to the principle of equal justice under law. I'll
    always remember the presentation I received from a gray-haired
    veteran of the Department, explaining the motto on DOJ's seal,
    Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur: Those Who Sue on Behalf of
    the Lady Justice.
        A few years later, I was blessed with the opportunity to
    serve as the solicitor general of the greatest State in the
    Union, Missouri, under the leadership of two great public
    servants. In this role, I was called upon to resist the
    overreaches of the Federal Government that trampled the
    fundamental rights of ordinary American citizens. I began to
    see, as our Founders did, that fidelity to the Constitution and
    the rule of law require constant vigilance and struggle.
        Then, during the most recent 2 years, I've had the opp--the
    great honor to represent President Trump in fighting back
    against the politically motivated prosecutions and lawfare
    campaigns against him. To me, these cases reflected a profound
    and dangerous perversion of the ideals of the Department of
    Justice, where I had proudly served as a young prosecutor. They
    manifested the weaponization of the Federal Government at its
    worst in an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with the 2024
    Presidential election by trying to prosecute and imprison the
    sitting President's main political opponent. I learned that
    fighting for the Constitution and the rule of law requires
    courage, perseverance, and sacrifice.
        Fortunately, that lawfare campaign failed and President
    Trump was re-elected in a historic landslide. In his inaugural
    address, President Trump promised that the scales of justice
    will be rebalanced. The vicious, violent, and unfair
    weaponization of the Justice Department and our Government will
    end. And never again will the immense power of the State be
    weaponized to persecute political opponents. Instead, President
    Trump pledged that we will restore fair, equal, and impartial
    justice under the constitutional rule of law.
        If I'm confirmed by the Senate, I pledge to work with
    Attorney General Bondi and her administration to support and
    achieve President Trump's vision of fair, equal, and impartial
    justice under the constitutional rule of law. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Mr. Reitz?

               STATEMENT OF AARON REITZ, NOMINEE TO SERVE

                 AS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE

              OF LEGAL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Reitz. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member
    Durbin, for convening this hearing and for providing my fellow
    nominees and me the opportunity to participate in the Senate's
    essential and time honored advice-and-consent role under the
    Constitution. The predominant feeling I have, sitting here
    today, is gratitude. And because of that, I want to say thank
    you to several people.
        Thank you to each of the individual Members of this
    Committee, both Republican and Democrat, as well as their
    staffs, for taking time to visit with me over the past couple
    of weeks. As I hope I made clear during those meetings, it's my
    goal to earn your support.
        Thank you to my boss, Senator Cruz, not only for your very
    kind introduction but for your past 2 years of mentorship while
    I've served as your chief of staff. You've shown me not only
    how to be a fierce defender of the Constitution and the rule of
    law but also how to work with a wide diversity of people with
    different perspectives, on both sides of the aisle, to serve
    the American people.
        Thank you to my family for supporting me and having my
    back. Today we have with us my wife of 16 years, Meredith.
    We've known each other since we were 12, and I was reminded
    while preparing the paperwork for this hearing how much we've
    been through together: moves; careers; deployments; kids; one
    public service pay cut after another; and now this new
    adventure--a hopeful opportunity to serve at the Justice
    Department. I love and appreciate you.
        We also have two of our four children here: William, my
    oldest, who was born while I was in Afghanistan; and his
    younger sister, Caroline. Back at home in Texas are our two
    littler ones, Cecilia and Georgia, who Meredith and I decided
    would be just a bit too squirmy for a Judiciary Committee
    hearing.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Reitz. Also at home are my parents, Donna and Paul. My
    father is undergoing surgery on Friday for kidney cancer, and
    we lift him up in prayer.
        Thank you to those who have had an outsized influence in
    developing me professionally over the years: my first Marine
    Corps battalion commander, Bill Vivian, and company commander
    Isaac Moore; law school deans Ward Farnsworth and Bobby
    Chesney; now-Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court Jimmy
    Blacklock, who I clerked for; Texas Attorney General Ken
    Paxton; and, of course, Senator Cruz.
        Thank you to Attorney General Pam Bondi for answering the
    call to serve as our Nation's Attorney General. She's been in
    office for only a few weeks and yet is already making historic
    strides to restore law and order and to increase the American
    people's confidence in our justice system. I am honored to be
    considered to serve under her.
        Last, and most of all, thank you to President Trump for
    entrusting me to lead the Office of Legal Policy. President
    Trump cast a vision for accountability, transparency,
    integrity, and devotion to the Constitution that inspired
    millions of Americans to overwhelmingly vote him into the White
    House. I look forward to doing my small part to carry out that
    vision at OLP under his and Attorney General Bondi's
    leadership.
        The Office of Legal Policy has a broad mission. It plays an
    important role in advising the Attorney General on legal
    policy, coordinating the Department's regulatory review
    process, and assisting the White House and Senate with judicial
    nominees.
        In each of these missions, I commit to the Senate the
    following: With respect to legal policy, you can expect me to
    pursue the President's and the Attorney General's agenda with
    energy, impartiality, independent thinking, and faithfulness to
    the Constitution and all Federal laws. With respect to
    regulatory law, you can expect me to closely coordinate with
    executive branch rulemaking authorities to ensure the
    Department is effectively and efficiently pursuing justice for
    all.
        And with respect to judges, you can expect me to faithfully
    assist the President--identify, vet, and process his judicial
    nominees. This necessarily means working collaboratively with
    the Judiciary Committee as well as individual home-State
    Senators.
        Last, in all things, the Senate, the President, and the
    American people have my absolute commitment to excellence,
    fairness, integrity, blind justice, the observance of the best
    legal practices, and adherence to the highest standards of
    conduct and ethics.
        Thank you again to the Committee for considering my
    nomination. I look forward to answering your questions and
    hopefully earning your support. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Reitz. Now, Mrs. Dhillon.

             STATEMENT OF HARMEET DHILLON, NOMINEE TO SERVE

              AS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS

                  DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Ms. Dhillon. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and
    Members of the Judiciary Committee, I would like to thank all
    of you for this opportunity to respond to your questions. And
    thank you to Senator Lee for his very kind introduction of me.
        I'm grateful for the time that many Committee Members have
    taken to meet or speak with me before this hearing, and I have
    valued hearing their concerns and ideas about the Civil Rights
    Division. I thank President Trump for nominating me to this
    important position. He knows all too well how the Department of
    Justice may be weaponized for the wrong ends, for political
    persecution, for payback, for punishing protected speech and
    ideas. As his lawyer for several years, I, too, am keenly aware
    of how quickly justice may become unjust. I also want to thank
    Attorney General Pam Bondi for her inspiring leadership and her
    trust in me.
        I am deeply honored to be joined by members of my immediate
    family here today: my mother, Parminder; my brother, Mandeep
    Singh Dhillon, and two of his children, Tegh Zoraver Singh and
    Hazuri Kaur Dhillon; and other dear and near family members.
    With me in spirit as well is my husband, Sarvjit, who passed
    away last summer and who supported me in every way. Many
    friends have come from around the country to support me, as
    well, and I'm so grateful. I owe everything I have in this
    world to God and to my family.
        My parents brought Mandeep and I to the Bronx, New York,
    where Dad finished his medical residency, then to rural
    Smithfield, North Carolina, where his simple goal was to raise
    his family in a small town with traditional values, practice
    orthopedics, play a little tennis, and enjoy the American
    dream. When we moved to Smithfield in 1975, there was a sign on
    the highway as you entered town that said, ``The United Klans
    of America Welcome Visitors to Smithfield.'' My parents didn't
    know what the Klan was when they moved to Smithfield. We did
    find out.
        Thankfully, the anachronistic and despicable sign came down
    in 1977, and the Klan didn't affect me directly. But I was
    bullied as a child for my long braids, my funny name, my
    unusual faith, and it wasn't the easiest thing to be a family
    of turban-wearing Sikhs in the rural South in the 1970s. What I
    learned from my parents was that, in America, anybody could be
    anything, with hard work and determination. I am before you
    today because of these life experiences.
        My faith teaches me that it is a duty to stand up for the
    rights of the defenseless. Throughout my 32-year legal career,
    I have honored this teaching through my legal work. In law
    school, I'd been an advocate for victims of domestic violence,
    work I continued for over a decade in private practice.
        I've advocated in the courts for asylum seekers facing
    religious and political persecution. My clients have included
    Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians. This work has
    taught me deep compassion for the oppressed, as well as a daily
    appreciation for the liberty that Americans often take for
    granted.
        I was a lawyer in private practice in Silicon Valley when
    the 9/11 terrorist attack struck. From handling intellectual
    property litigation, I suddenly pivoted to writing legal memos
    to help South Asians and Arab Americans understand their legal
    rights in the face of wholesale attacks from fellow Americans--
    ranging from murders and assaults on Sikh gas station owners
    and taxi drivers to casual slurs shouted at my brother,
    Mandeep, at Candlestick Park in San Francisco, calling him
    ``Osama,'' and telling him to go back to his country.
        This is our country, Senators. And it is the greatest
    country on God's earth. Today, the promise of equal opportunity
    that my family taught me, which I fought for my entire career
    in the courtroom, is being robbed from millions of Americans in
    the workplace by dangerous and oppressive ideology enabled by
    corrosive government dictates.
        Young girls and women are seeing their dreams of hard-
    fought equal access to sports opportunities, of even basic
    privacy, modesty, and dignity in women's private spaces being
    sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
        Generations of young people have been denied educational
    opportunities because of their immutable characteristics
    instead of merit, even in the face of Supreme Court precedent
    that clearly bans such admissions policies. And our elections
    are consistently at risk of becoming ad hoc coronations where
    government officials in power put a thumb on the scale to
    achieve preferred outcomes.
        Our democracy is the lifeblood of our Republic. Insecurity
    in this process breeds mistrust. Mistrust breeds anxiety and
    anarchy. We must remain forever vigilant in ensuring the
    results at the ballot box reflect the will of the people, not
    the preferences of the elite.
        It's 2025 in America. President Trump was just elected with
    a historic amount of support from Latinos, African Americans,
    Asian Americans, and Americans without college degrees. There
    is no greater time to be alive and to be an American than
    today.
        If I am honored to be confirmed as Assistant Attorney
    General for Civil Rights, this is my promise, Senators: I will
    bring my decades of experience as an attorney fighting for the
    rights of the defenseless to work every day. I will start every
    analysis with the Constitution. I will respect the words of
    statutes and the teachings of the courts, even if I disagree
    with them, though I will act within the law to challenge legal
    rulings I believe are wrong or statutes I believe are
    unconstitutional.
        What I will never do is use the DOJ Civil Rights Division
    as a partisan tool to push a political agenda. The Department
    of Justice stands for justice for all Americans. My parents
    crossed two oceans to bring me, as a small child, to America.
    We, as a family, are Americans by choice, and I can think of no
    higher honor as a lawyer than to be charged with defending and
    advancing the civil rights of all American citizens. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. We have 5-minute rounds of
    questions. I'll start and then go to Senator Durbin. I want to
    apologize to the three of you, because when I'm done asking my
    questions, other Members will take over chairing because I have
    to go to the Agriculture Committee.
        So, I'm going to start with Mr. Reitz. Being a major in the
    Marines, and your service in Afghanistan, how do you think your
    military service has informed your legal career, and what
    lessons will you take from the Marine Corps to your role at
    DOJ?
        Mr. Reitz. Well, thank you for that question, Chairman
    Grassley. I first raised my hand and swore an oath to defend
    the Constitution when I was 22 years old. I take that oath
    deadly seriously.
        That not only structures my philosophy of how I would
    approach my job at the Justice Department, but that commitment
    also shapes how I work and how I execute that mission: with
    integrity, with excellence, with high standards, morals, and
    treating everybody with dignity, the way that they deserve to
    be treated. And so not only do I bring a commitment to the U.S.
    Constitution but I also bring a way of acting that I think
    adheres to the best that our Nation has to offer.
        Chairman Grassley. Yes. Mr. Sauer, you clerked for Justice
    Scalia, a famous champion of interpreting the doctrine of
    originalism and, throughout his career, promoting the concept
    of federalism. What was your most important lesson that you
    learned from Justice Scalia?
        Mr. Sauer. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. It
    would be very hard to reduce it to just one. But I would, in
    response to your question, echo the personal characteristics of
    Justice Scalia that I emphasized when I had the privilege of
    giving a eulogy for him in 2016 after his death. Not just his
    titanic influence on the development of law in the United
    States and advancing the doctrines of textualism and
    originalism, but in my experience he exemplified the
    characteristics of a teacher and mentor, a man of great
    personal devotion, a man of great personal courage, and a
    person of deep humility.
        And I think you see the humility of Justice Scalia
    reflected in his attraction to the legal theories that he
    espoused, which are ultimately humble legal theories: the legal
    theories of the limited role of courts in the interpretation of
    congressional statutes and the Constitution.
        Chairman Grassley. Ms. Dhillon, you'll have to protect the
    civil rights of all Americans. Under Diversity, Equity, and
    Inclusion, the previous administration imposed a nationwide
    regime that discriminated against some people. The Civil Rights
    Division completely failed to enforce our Nation's Civil Rights
    Laws. So, how will your approach to enforcing our Civil Rights
    Laws differ from the previous administration?
        Ms. Dhillon. Chairman Grassley, thank you for that
    question. The Civil Rights Division has 11 sections, and each
    of them is charged with an important duty under the
    Constitution and the statutes, of course. So, my approach is
    going to be to meet with the section heads in each of those
    sections, understand the present work that they are doing, and
    then assessing the extent to which that work is consistent with
    my view of the civil rights statutes and the priorities of the
    Department of Justice.
        And I think the President and Attorney General Bondi have
    made clear that Diversity, Equity, Inclusion--as it has been
    applied to use racial quotas to deny people equal access to
    education, employment, even potentially housing and other
    aspects of civil life that are covered by the civil rights
    statutes--are inappropriate. And so we'll certainly be taking a
    close look at all of those and enforcing the law equally in
    favor of all Americans.
        Chairman Grassley. Would you approach Title VII
    discrimination and Civil Rights Laws and use it against
    companies that discriminate on the basis of race?
        Ms. Dhillon. Senator, if the facts support such a
    prosecution or a civil litigation, I certainly would do that.
    It is inappropriate, in my view--and I think Title VII's
    language is clear--that racial discrimination is inappropriate
    in hiring. And so that is certainly a priority that I would
    undertake and one that I have undertaken in private practice,
    as well.
        Chairman Grassley. The same question, as it relates to
    Title VI, against universities that receive Federal funds but
    who discriminate on the basis of race.
        Ms. Dhillon. Senator, we have a problem throughout the
    United States, not just on the basis of race in universities,
    but also religion. We've seen antisemitism sweep the Nation,
    and it is very problematic that many people of the Jewish faith
    are barred by professors and fellow students from access to the
    classroom. So, yes, in addition to race, I would see religious
    discrimination and other forms of discrimination on campuses as
    an appropriate target for the Civil Rights Division.
        Chairman Grassley. Thanks to all three of you. Senator
    Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations
    to each of you, your family, and friends for this historic
    opportunity. Mrs. Dhillon, I thank you for coming by the
    office. Though we may not agree on many issues, I certainly
    respected the exchange.
        I want to say for the record I'm still proud of the fact
    that the Sikh community came to me after 9/11 and asked me to
    introduce a resolution which said that there should not be any
    discrimination against those who follow your religion, as a
    result of 9/11. It passed on a bipartisan basis. George W.
    Bush, as President, I think showed real leadership on that and
    many other issues.
        I also held a hearing in this Committee when we had the
    terrible incident at the gurdwara in Wisconsin where a white
    supremacist killed innocent people of the Sikh community. We
    had a hearing on that and packed the room with those who were
    interested in making sure that it never happens again.
        I'd like to go to specific questions, if I can, of the
    nominees. Mr. Reitz, have you ever expressed support for the
    idea that an elected official should defy a Federal court
    order?
        Mr. Reitz. Thank you, Ranking Member Durbin. I'm not aware
    of any instances, at this time, of having made such an
    assertion.
        Senator Durbin. So, let me remind you of a statement that
    you made. On March 30, 2020, U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel, a
    George W. Bush appointee, temporarily blocked Texas from
    closing abortion clinics as a response to the State's COVID-19
    outbreak. You commented on this and wrote----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. ``Looking for some Andrew
    Jackson-level leadership on this one. Judge Yeakel has made his
    decision. Now let him enforce it.'' This was an obvious
    reference to the fictitious story about language supposedly
    used by Andrew Jackson in suggesting he would defy a Supreme
    Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia. Do you stand by your
    tweet?
        Mr. Reitz. Thank you for reminding me of this tweet,
    Ranking Member Durbin. What this tweet reflects is a
    conservative view of Article III and the role of courts and
    their ability to bind parties that are not litigants to the
    case before it, which is a mainstream view within
    jurisprudential debates, but captured in, you know, 140
    characters on a tweet.
        Senator Durbin. Bottom line: Should an elected official be
    allowed to defy a Federal court order?
        Mr. Reitz. It would be too case specific for me to say--to
    make a blanket statement about that, Ranking Member Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. So, you're saying that a legal court order
    from a Federal court should not be followed under some
    circumstances? What would those circumstances be?
        Mr. Reitz. Ranking Member Durbin, what I'm--what I'm saying
    is that there are some instances in which a public official is
    lawfully bound by the holding of a particular court, in which
    case that official would, in fact, lawfully be required to be
    bound by it. I can't speak, though, Ranking Member Durbin, for
    all instances in which that dynamic may or may not be at play,
    given a certain lawsuit.
        Senator Durbin. That's an incredible statement by someone
    who wants to be part of the Department of Justice. Mr. Sauer,
    what's your take on this?
        Mr. Sauer. Ranking Member Durbin, thank you for the
    question. Like Mr. Reitz, I don't want to speak to
    hypotheticals, especially not hypotheticals that might come
    before me in an official capacity, if I were confirmed by the
    Senate. Generally, if there's a direct court order that binds a
    Federal or State official, they should follow it.
        Senator Durbin. Why do you say ``generally'' ? Give me an
    exception that would be acceptable to you.
        Mr. Sauer. I suppose if we--again, as I sit here, I can't
    think of a hypothetical, one way or the other. I suppose one
    could imagine hypotheticals in, you know, extreme cases like,
    you know, the Korematsu decision, you know, the Dred Scott
    decision, where people----
        Senator Durbin. Let's go back to Korematsu. Describe for me
    that circumstance that you think relieved an official from
    obeying a court order.
        Mr. Sauer. Well, I believe there was a court order there
    that upheld--which has now been, I think, correctly repudiated
    by virtually everyone--a court order that upheld the internment
    of Japanese civilians in----
        Senator Durbin. As bad as it was----
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. Internment camps during----
        Senator Durbin. As bad as it was, that court order was
    followed for years. Was it not?
        Mr. Sauer. And I just wonder whether some historians might
    think we'd be better off if it hadn't been followed.
        Senator Durbin. But once we----
        Mr. Sauer. Again, I don't want to get into a----
        Senator Durbin. I want to get----
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. Discussion about that.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Into it, because I think it
    goes to the heart of the question of the future constitutional
    challenge we face as a Nation. There's a great fear among many
    people--academics and people in the legal profession--as to
    whether or not this President would defy a court order, which
    basically would put him above the law, at least in his own
    eyes. And I want to know what circumstances Mr. Reitz and Mr.
    Sauer believe justify that conclusion.
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Moody [presiding]. And you can answer that quickly.
    He's run out of time.
        Mr. Sauer. Very quickly. I've represented President Trump
    for the better part of 2 years, and I just think that that's
    not a plausible scenario.
        Senator Durbin. Do you say the same, Mr. Reitz?
        Senator Moody. You've run out of time, Ranking Member.
    Thank you. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. I think maybe I've misunderstood this last
    line of questioning. I thought it sounded to me like my friend,
    Senator Durbin, was defending the Korematsu decision, which I
    think is one of the worst and most abhorrent decisions in the
    history of the United States. So, I just want to be clear on
    this.
        Let me--let me give you all a chance to weigh in on this.
    When we have a decision that is absolutely morally abhorrent--
    Korematsu, Dred Scott--we can go down the line. Should
    officials who disagree with a morally abhorrent decision just
    blindly follow it? Or do they register their disagreements?
        I suppose if they have to, they resign in protest. I mean,
    there's a system for this. There's a pattern for this. But is
    the United States of America better off if our public
    officials, in the face of grievous moral wrong, say and do
    nothing? Mr. Sauer?
        Mr. Sauer. I strongly agree, Senator Hawley, with your--
    with your reaction to that. And the only point I was trying to
    make in my exchange with the Ranking Member was, it's hard to
    make a very blanket, sweeping statement about something without
    being presented with the facts and the law that applied in that
    particular scenario. So those historical examples, I think, are
    designed to illustrate the difficulty of doing that.
        Senator Hawley. Mr. Reitz, do you want to add anything?
        Mr. Reitz. Yes. Thank you for your background and also for
    teeing up that question. I stand by my earlier comments, which
    is to say that there is no hard-and-fast rule about whether in
    some--in every instance a public official is bound by a court
    decision. There are some instances in which he or she may
    lawfully be bound and other instances in which he or she may
    not lawfully be bound.
        Senator Hawley. Well, certainly I know that everybody
    sitting on this panel in front of me is a firm believer in the
    rule of law. It just seems to me--I think I can--we can
    multiply these instances.
        The Fugitive Slave Act, for example--and we had numerous
    judges and other public officials--when the Supreme Court said
    that the Fugitive Slave Law, an absolutely abhorrent law, had
    to be enforced in the North, you had multiple judges who said,
    I can't in good conscience enforce this. Many of them then
    resigned. The United States might be a better place if more of
    them had done so and had taken a stand firmly against such
    injustice.
        So, I can't believe that it's the position of anybody on
    this Committee that in the face of decisions like Korematsu and
    Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act that we should say to
    people, oh, just grin and bear it. Don't say anything. Enforce
    the law. For heaven's sake--I mean, good heavens.
        Ms. Dhillon, let me ask you, you spoke very movingly about
    religious liberty, and it made me think of that line that
    America didn't invent religious liberty. Religious liberty
    invented America. And your family's story is certainly a
    testament to that. I also am mindful of the fact that in the
    last 4 years we have seen unprecedented attacks on religious
    liberty in this country, absolutely abhorrent attacks on people
    of faith.
        Just to take one example, after the Supreme Court's Dobbs
    decision, 100 pregnancy care centers--more than that--were
    vandalized, criminally assaulted, firebombed. Over 300
    churches, many of them Catholic churches, were targeted in the
    same manner. The Biden Justice Department did nothing to defend
    these institutions. They let them twist in the wind. They
    allowed the violence to go on virtually unchecked, and indeed
    Members of this body encouraged this kind of violence with
    outrageous irresponsible rhetoric on the floor of the United
    States Senate and on the floor of the United States House of
    Representatives.
        My question to you is, will you commit to stopping the
    disparate treatment of Americans on the basis of religious
    faith that we have seen in the last 4 years? Will you make sure
    that people of faith are protected in the religious expression
    of their most deeply held beliefs?
        Ms. Dhillon. Thank you for that question, Senator Hawley. I
    believe my career and the disclosures made to the Senate would
    back up the fact that my entire career in 32 years has included
    religious liberty litigation on the side of people of faith, of
    minority and majority faiths, and I'm very proud of that.
        And I've won cases at the United States Supreme Court,
    defending people of faith from Government tyranny and
    obstruction. And so I would absolutely be committed, as a top
    priority in the Civil Rights Division, if confirmed, to
    defending people of faith equally.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. And will you investigate and,
    where it's warranted, prosecute those who carry out attacks on
    pregnancy care centers, places of worship, those who with
    religious--or maybe it's anti-religious motivation target
    people of faith in their houses of worship and other places
    where, frankly, they're quite vulnerable?
        Ms. Dhillon. Absolutely, Senator. I don't think there's any
    question about that.
        Senator Hawley. Good. Let me ask you about antisemitism on
    America's campuses. You referenced this, I think, in your
    opening statement. Since October 7 of 2023, we've seen the most
    horrific explosion of antisemitic violence.
        Just yesterday I met in my office with a young man, a
    student at DePaul University, an ROTC member. He's also Jewish.
    He's a Jewish American. His arm was in a sling because he had
    been physically assaulted on his campus. What was his offense?
    He had been tabling in support of the state of Israel. Will you
    commit to vigorously enforcing, Ms. Dhillon, Title VI
    violations related to antisemitism to make sure that we root
    out the scourge on America's campuses?
        Senator Moody. If you want to briefly answer?
        Ms. Dhillon. Absolutely, Senator. I would certainly commit
    to that.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Coons. Thank you----
        Senator Moody. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons [continuing]. Madam Chair. Mr. Sauer, thank
    you for your service as a Federal prosecutor to the people of
    Missouri, Mr. Reitz, for your service to this body, to my
    colleague Senator Cruz, and your military service to our
    Nation, and, Ms. Dhillon, I appreciate your willingness to step
    forward and raise your hand to serve. You are all seeking
    critical leadership positions in a Department of Justice that
    is reeling and questioning the direction that it's being taken.
        Career prosecutors were fired for working on cases that
    President Trump did not approve of or like. Senior DOJ leaders
    in national security posts have been reassigned. And at the
    Southern District of New York and in the Public Integrity Unit,
    a half dozen prosecutors resigned earlier this month rather
    than carry out what they believed to be unlawful or unethical
    orders in the Eric Adams case.
        Now, Ms. Dhillon, if President Trump were to ask you to do
    something that you believed was either illegal or
    unconstitutional, what would you do?
        Ms. Dhillon. Thank you for that question, Senator Coons.
    First of all, I have represented President Trump for 4 years in
    numerous different cases, and I currently represent him as a
    private attorney. And in all of those years, in multiple cases,
    in multiple jurisdictions, the President has never asked me to
    do anything that I found to be objectionable, immoral,
    unlawful, or illegal. And so I really can't fathom the
    circumstance that you're describing. It would----
        Senator Coons. Well, as I----
        Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. Really be a hypothetical----
        Senator Coons. As I just conveyed, I don't think it's a
    hypothetical. You've got folks in the Public Integrity Unit and
    the Southern District resigning over what they believe to be an
    unethical and inappropriate order, and I put that exact
    question to your predecessor in the first Trump administration,
    Eric Dreiband--his first AG for Civil Rights. He didn't call it
    hypothetical. He answered directly. He said, every Department
    of Justice attorney swears an oath to faithfully execute and
    defend the Constitution and laws, and it would therefore be
    appropriate to refuse to follow a directive of the President if
    illegal or unconstitutional. Mr. Dreiband, in exactly the same
    situation, answered the question. Is there any reason you
    can't?
        Ms. Dhillon. Well, Mr. Dreiband didn't have 4 years of
    representing President Trump as his lawyer, and so I would--I'm
    going to give him the grace of not knowing, for that experience
    that I've had. And so I think that it is a hypothetical to me,
    and so I respectfully----
        Senator Coons. It may be to you, but sadly it is not to
    currently serving members of the Department of Justice. If I
    might, Mr. Reitz, in the exchange that was just held both
    between Senator Durbin and Senator Hawley and yourself, dozens
    of President Trump's Executive orders have been blocked by
    Federal courts in recent weeks--Federal district courts, and a
    number have been reviewed on appeal. To your knowledge, has the
    administration complied with these Federal court orders?
        Mr. Reitz. Thank you, Senator Coons. I have not been
    following the procedural posture of those cases very closely.
    Of course, I intend to do so, should I be confirmed, once I'm
    in the Justice Department.
        Senator Coons. You'll be centrally involved in those
    decisions, and part of what my colleague was trying to focus on
    was the tweet that you apparently posted in response to a
    decision you didn't like. The tweet said, ``Looking for some
    Andrew Jackson-level leadership on this one. Judge Yeakel has
    made his decision. Now let him enforce it.'' My colleague from
    Missouri suggested that somehow Senator Durbin was standing up
    for the Korematsu decision or standing up for the Dred Scott
    decision.
        And I think buried in what he said, and in what my
    colleague said, is clarity. What are the avenues appropriately
    available to a litigant, which can include the President or a
    Department Secretary, what are the avenues available to
    properly challenge a duly issued Federal circuit or district
    court order? And is it ever proper to simply refuse to obey
    that order?
        Mr. Reitz. Thank you, Senator Coons. I'll answer your
    second question first, which is what I referenced earlier.
    There is no hard-and-fast rule in all instances in which a
    litigant must comply with all or some or various parts of a
    judicial decision. It is so fact, law, and case specific that
    one cannot speak generally.
        Senator Coons. In your view, do litigants before a Federal
    court get to choose whether or not to obey a Federal court
    order? They can----
        Mr. Reitz. If----
        Senator Coons [continuing]. Appeal it. They can speak out
    against it. They can question it. But can they refuse? Could
    the President of the United States refuse, as a litigant before
    a Federal court, refuse to follow that order, which was the key
    implication of your tweet?
        Mr. Reitz. So, generally speaking, Senator Coons, parties
    to a case are bound by a lawful court holding from that court.
    And as you rightly pointed out, Senator Coons, there are many
    different avenues to right a perceived wrong: appeals,
    rehearings, various motions, et cetera. You're familiar with
    them.
        Senator Coons. I hope you will be clear in your service,
    since I recognize I'm nearing the end of my time. Thank you for
    that answer. I think all of us are holding our breath to see
    whether or not President Trump and those who will be advising
    him correctly understand what is a foundational principle of
    the rule of law.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Coons----
        Senator Coons. A litigant before----
        Senator Moody [continuing]. For your brevity.
        Senator Coons [continuing]. A Federal court may----
        Senator Moody. Appreciate that.
        Senator Coons [continuing]. Appeal, may question, may
    challenge, but may not ignore a district----
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons [continuing]. Court order.
        Senator Moody. We'll move to Senator Blackburn for her
    questioning.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and
    congratulations to each of you. We are--we're really pleased
    that your families are here, that you have this nomination, and
    we're so looking forward to having you serve President Trump
    and the American people in your positions. So, congratulations
    to you.
        Ms. Dhillon, I want to come to you first. In Tennessee, we
    follow the motto, ``Let's Make it Easier to Vote and Harder to
    Cheat.'' And it is important for each person to know that their
    vote is counted and that votes are--that the process is going
    to be a process that is true, transparent, and honest. And so
    our counties have been busy cleaning up voter rolls, and it's
    why Tennessee has been ranked number one in the country for
    election integrity.
        And I know that you're going to follow those same premises
    at the Department of Justice. So, I would like for you to talk
    about what you can do at the Civil Rights Division to make
    certain that we restore election integrity.
        Ms. Dhillon. Well, thank you for that question, Senator
    Blackburn. And I really appreciate how Tennessee has taken a
    lead in cleaning up the voter rolls. Federal law provides under
    the National Voter Registration Act that States do maintain
    their voter rolls in an up-to-date way.
        But, in fact, most States are woefully behind in doing so,
    which creates confusion and distress among citizens who are
    concerned that their votes are not being equally cast. I think
    there are limited enforcement mechanisms for the Department of
    Justice to necessarily take the lead on this particular issue.
        But there've been many cases in which private organizations
    or State parties have been granted standing to challenge and
    the Department of Justice has the opportunity in those cases,
    where the facts have been developed, to come in and take a
    position, as well.
        And the position, in my opinion, of the Department of
    Justice should be 100 percent in favor of clean voter rolls.
    And now many States have evolved excellent methods for doing
    that in a fair way, giving citizens notice, giving them notice
    in multiple election cycles. And so I think there are many ways
    that States can stay up to date, like Tennessee has done.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you for that. Mr. Sauer, I want to
    come to you. And I appreciated the opportunity to visit with
    you prior to the hearing. I want to drill down on one comment
    you made, ``justice without fear or favor.''
        And I appreciated that, because so many people that have
    reached out to us, Members of this Committee, have noted that
    it seemed we were in the season under the last administration
    where there were two tiers of justice and two tiers of access
    and two tiers of treatment. And the American people have spoken
    against this, loudly, and they want equal justice for all. So,
    I would like for you to comment on what you mean and how that
    concept, justice without fear or favor, is essential to your
    role as the Solicitor General.
        Mr. Sauer. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
    And again, thank you very much for the opportunity to meet and
    speak with you. I greatly appreciated that opportunity. I
    greatly appreciate the question, as well, because I think that
    you've asked about something that goes to the heart of the role
    of the Department of Justice.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, the principle of
    equal justice under law, which is the same as justice without
    fear or favor, is central to the Department of Justice's
    mission. Senator Hawley, I think, referred to some recent
    historical examples of situations where that was not fully
    upheld in the most recent administration.
        In my opening statement, I referred to what to me obviously
    are the most compelling and, really, astonishing experiences
    that I have had with respect to that, that really--certainly
    that involved many of the cases that I had the privilege of
    litigating under the leadership of Senator Schmitt, but in--
    when he was attorney general of Missouri--but also representing
    President Trump in the recent lawfare and weaponized
    prosecutions that he experienced.
        So, we have a number of unfortunate examples in our recent
    history, in the Department of Justice, and that's why what was
    really kind of a ringing call to me in President Trump's
    inaugural address was his statements that I quoted about
    restoring equal justice under law and the constitutional rule
    of law.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Mr. Reitz, in your role over
    at DOJ, you're going to be responsible for initiating policy
    initiatives. And this is something important to addressing
    violent crime that is just raging across the country. And I
    want to get from you in writing what you can do. The previous
    Trump administration had programs like Operation Legend, which
    was very effective in Memphis, Tennessee. And I know my time
    has expired, but if you'll submit that one to me in writing.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Thank you for
    respecting that time. We're going to hear from Senator Hirono
    now.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask the following
    two initial questions of all nominees before any of my
    Committees, so I will ask you, starting with Mr. Sauer, and
    we'll just go right down the line. Since you became a legal
    adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors
    or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a
    sexual nature?
        Mr. Sauer. No.
        Mr. Reitz. No.
        Ms. Dhillon. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
    into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
        Mr. Sauer. No.
        Mr. Reitz. No, Senator.
        Ms. Dhillon. I have not, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. I would like to state, with regard to Mr.
    Reitz that--for the record, that in 2023, during impeachment
    proceedings against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Texas
    Ranger testified that there were, quote, ``many complaints of
    sexual harassment by female employees,'' end quote, about Mr.
    Reitz when he worked in the Texas attorney general's office.
    And I will have further questions for the record regarding
    these complaints.
        For Ms. Dhillon, relating to Section 2 of the Voting Rights
    Act, I think that your position is that Section 2 of the Voting
    Rights Act requires actual discrimination and basically
    discriminatory intent before it will be deemed unconstitutional
    under Section 2. Is that correct? Is that your view of Section
    2, Voting Rights Act?
        Ms. Dhillon. I would say, to generalize, yes, it is.
        Senator Hirono. So, that means that unless there is
    discriminatory intent and, let's say, a State legislature says,
    yes, we are about to enact legislation that will discriminate
    against a group, you do not think that Section 2 applies?
        Ms. Dhillon. I disagree with your characterization,
    Senator. There are many ways to prove intent other than a
    blanket statement from a State legislature, and----
        Senator Hirono. Well, Ms. Dhillon, let me mention that
    under President Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland, they
    filed a number of lawsuits under Section 2--for example, a law
    prohibiting civil groups from providing food or water to people
    who are standing in line to vote. There was no discriminatory
    intent. Would you have filed that lawsuit against that law?
        Ms. Dhillon. Senator, I haven't had the opportunity to
    study all of the facts underlying those prosecutions by the
    Biden Department of Justice. On its face----
        Senator Hirono. Well--excuse me. What they--Merrick Garland
    also filed a lawsuit under Section 2 of State law limiting
    counties' use of absentee ballot dropboxes. So, there are a
    number of these kinds of voting rights laws that the States
    enacted after Shelby County, and in fact 13 States very
    immediately passed all kinds of laws that made it a lot tougher
    to vote.
        So, I'm just wondering, how are you going to decide which
    ones to go after? I mean, these obviously have the effect of
    discrimination against certain groups, making it harder for
    them to vote. How would you decide which of these kinds of
    voting rights laws enacted by States--without, you know, the
    obvious smoking gun?
        Ms. Dhillon. Well, Senator, I have to disagree with the
    premise of your question, that all of these measures that
    Georgia and other States took to improve confidence of all
    citizens in voting in fact had any----
        Senator Hirono. Well----
        Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. Discriminatory impact.
        Senator Hirono. Excuse me. I only have a minute. I mean,
    obviously there is disagreement. That is the crux, isn't it, as
    to whether or not these laws actually have an
    antidiscriminatory effect? And you obviously do not think so.
        For Mr. Reitz: You stated, in one of your many tweets--in
    fact, there are thousands of tweets that you deleted before
    your nomination. And we could go over some of them. They're
    quite astounding. But one of them said birthright citizenship
    is not a thing. Is birthright citizenship in the Constitution?
    Yes or no? Yes or no?
        Mr. Reitz. Thank you, Senator Hirono. I think that there
    are reasonable debates to be had about the meaning and
    application and scope of what is commonly called birthright
    citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment.
        Senator Hirono. Well, actually, since it's been 130 years
    where this particular provision has been deemed to confer
    birthright citizenship, and not in the way that President Trump
    uses it--and apparently not you.
        So, when we start talking about, you know, the rule of law
    and that you all would follow the rule of law, I do wonder what
    constitutes rule of law in your mind, because after President
    Trump issued all of his Executive orders, some 70 lawsuits have
    been filed challenging the legality of his Executive orders.
    So, legality is often in the minds and eyes of the beholder.
    Thank you.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Hirono. We'll turn to
    Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I just want to
    say congratulations to each and every one of you for being
    nominated and to your families. I know that this is a big
    moment and you're really proud of the work that they've done to
    get here and what an honor it is. I think all of us up here
    know that when you serve, it's not just you--it's your entire
    family that does. And so we say thank you.
        I especially want to say something to Mr. Reitz. It has
    been an honor and privilege to get to work with you over the
    last 2 years. I am not only grateful for your service to this
    Nation and the U.S. Marine Corps, but what I have seen you do
    for Senator Cruz firsthand.
        As a former chief myself, I know what it takes to make it
    all work and to make sure that your boss and your State and the
    Nation are in the best place possible. You have done that in a
    manner that is second to none. And I am excited to see each and
    every one of you serve our Nation at a higher level. So, thank
    you.
        I'm going to start with Mrs. Dhillon. So, to follow up on
    Senator Blackburn's comments, Alabama feels strongly about
    making sure that every single person has access to vote--that
    we make that easier, whether that's providing free voter ID,
    whether that's coming to your house to allow you to register.
    We want to make sure that every citizen does that.
        We also want to make sure that that vote is protected. Part
    of the work of the Civil Rights Division relates to protecting
    that right to vote. In my view, it's an important part of
    protecting the right of American citizens to vote, and it's to
    ensure that the votes aren't diluted by those who have actually
    no right to vote.
        I know you've done some work on this issue during your time
    in private practice, and it's an issue that I've also worked to
    address here in Congress. During this Congress, I'll be
    reintroducing, once again, the Citizen Ballot Protection Act,
    which amends Federal law to explicitly allow States to put in
    place proof of citizenship, to require that for Federal mail-in
    voter registration forms and any State mail voter registration
    forms that they might develop.
        I think many people across the Nation would be shocked to
    know that States are currently hamstrung when it comes to
    requiring proof of citizenship as part of certain voter
    registration processes. It's common sense to ensure that only
    American citizens are registering to vote in our elections.
        Based on your experience, can you explain why it's
    important and necessary to take steps to ensure that non-
    citizens are not voting in our election and the role that you
    think DOJ and, in particular, the Civil Rights Division can or
    should play in ensuring the votes of American citizens are not
    diluted?
        Ms. Dhillon. Thank you for your question, Senator Britt,
    and I actually want to particularly thank you for introducing
    the legislation you just described, because while the NVRA
    doesn't itself, of course, bar States from requiring proof of
    citizenship, courts have done that and laid that prohibition--
    that, in fact, was the subject of some conversations I had with
    some of your fellow Senators while we met.
        I do think that it would be a tremendous boost to voter
    confidence in the integrity of elections in the States if there
    was assurance that only citizens are voting. Similarly, that
    they're only voting once. I think that's also very important.
        And the current self-certification system has not only
    allowed people to maliciously vote when they weren't entitled
    to, it's actually led many legal immigrants to unknowingly cast
    a vote and thereby putting their own ability to become United
    States citizens in peril. And we've seen this happen in
    Pennsylvania and other States. So, I do think that it would be
    a tremendous boost to voter integrity and confidence. And that,
    in turn, would cause more Americans to come out to vote, which
    I think all of us want on both sides of the aisle.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. I couldn't agree more. Mrs.
    Dhillon, another question. As you're aware, President Trump
    signed an Executive order in January related to the measures to
    combat antisemitism. Senator Hawley touched on this earlier,
    but pursuant to that order, Attorney General Bondi earlier this
    month announced the formation of a multi-agency task force to
    do this, to make sure that we're doing this. The task force
    will be coordinated through the Civil Rights Division.
        I have long been concerned about this issue and didn't
    think the Biden administration acted aggressively enough to
    address it, particularly on college campuses. So, once
    confirmed as the head of the Civil Rights Division, can you
    assure me that you will take aggressive action via this task
    force to ensure that Jewish students are protected from abuse
    and harassment and that those who engage in such behavior will
    be subject to the full force of the law?
        Ms. Dhillon. Well, Senator, this is a very high priority
    for me. And I have several Orthodox Jews who've worked at my
    law firm and have personally given me stories about their
    family circumstances and instances of discrimination on
    campuses and in other settings. Coming from a religious
    minority myself, I think it is very important and crucial that
    the Civil Rights Division step up to defend students on campus,
    because it is a blow not just to those individual students but
    to the entire community when they see campus administrators
    refuse to protect them.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Britt. You're so timely.
    Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. Reitz, I
    want to pick up with a discussion that I found a little
    troubling, and I'd love to go into it a little bit more with
    you. It just sounds like that you have been suggesting that
    government officials can ignore a court order if they disagree
    with it.
        You're pointing to some of the worst cases in our Nation,
    like Korematsu. This would really create a constitutional
    crisis in this American context in which we're living right
    now, if our courts impose injunctions that restrict or compel
    government action and then government officials go against
    that. To me, that's the very nature of what a constitutional
    crisis is.
        My staff pulled a tweet of yours that you compared the Dred
    Scott decision to the Court's decision in same-sex marriages.
    And so I want to know, do you think public officials have it
    within their right, if they find it morally wrong--the
    Obergefell decision--to violate that court order or that
    Court's conclusions?
        Mr. Reitz. Thank you, Senator Booker. So, my position, I've
    been consistent on, which is that parties to the litigation are
    bound by the lawful holdings of their respective court. I
    understand that there is genuine jurisprudential disagreement
    about the scope of certain holdings, whether they can apply
    nationally or to just litigants or other litigants. But I think
    that it is a fair discussion for attorneys in good faith to
    discuss the scope of a holding of a case.
        Senator Booker. I find academic discussions important in
    our national dialogue. But you're being nominated for a very
    important position, and my question to you, I guess, is very
    plain: If you morally disagree with a court order, do you
    believe you can defy that court order--that the Trump
    administration, that the Government, that you, in your
    position, can defy that court order?
        Mr. Reitz. Senator Booker, I appreciate the clarification.
    However, just a general reference in this hearing to a litigant
    morally disagreeing to the decision of a court, in my opinion,
    is too hypothetical for me to be able to answer with precision.
        Senator Booker. Do you understand that that is not a
    comfortable assurance for me, when there are credible concerns
    about the Supreme Court making a decision, as in Obergefell,
    and having an administration that feels that it can defy that?
    You're not giving me great confidence by stating unequivocally
    that we are a Nation that respects the separation of powers,
    the role of the courts.
        And far be it for me to lecture you, and I hope you don't
    take it that way. But the traditions of our country, if you
    disagree with a morally wrong law--the traditions we exalt--one
    of the two exceptions of statues underneath the dome of the
    Capitol is Martin Luther King, who was very clear about when
    you find a law morally wrong and you break that law, you accept
    the consequences of that, which is jail or removal from a
    position. I'm seeing, right now, good-faith actors within
    Government resigning from their positions.
        That is a very different tradition, that vaunted tradition
    in our country, than a person in a position like you were
    nominated for willfully disregarding a court order. That is, in
    its very nature, a constitutional crisis, and your failure in
    this forum to resolutely state your commitment to abide by
    court orders--I hope you can understand why that would be
    troubling to many of the Senators before you. You understand
    that that's troubling?
        Mr. Reitz. I understand, Senator Booker, that that is a
    perspective that Members of this body may have.
        Senator Booker. Very difficult for me to swallow that, and
    honestly, you send a chill to me and my concerns about the
    current administration. Ms. Dhillon, I am happy to see you here
    because of the pride of your family behind you. You can see it
    written over their faces. I hope you understand that. They are
    just extraordinary for me, as an American, to see you sitting
    here and your incredible family behind you.
        I have some very direct questions for you that I do not
    have time with because I fear the Chairwoman.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Booker. But I'm going to put them in writing, and
    they have to do with your knowledge of any plans to dismiss
    employees and a lot of the things that're going on here that do
    arise concerns to me. So, I'll put them in writing. Would you
    commit to responding to me?
        Ms. Dhillon. Yes, Senator, I commit to responding to your
    questions.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much. Madam----
        Senator Moody. Thank you----
        Senator Booker [continuing]. Chairwoman----
        Senator Moody [continuing]. Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. I hope----
        Senator Moody. You, too, are timely.
        Senator Booker. Thank you for the same kindness that you
    extend to me that you extended to my colleague.
        Senator Moody. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. A few moments ago, one
    of my colleagues asked a question about abiding by the rule of
    law and abiding by Supreme Court decisions. Now, when the
    Supreme Court ruled that President Biden didn't, in fact, have
    authority to undertake his student loan forgiveness program,
    President Biden made a statement--made a statement following
    that, to the effect of the following, quote, ``The Supreme
    Court blocked it, but that didn't stop me''--flouting openly
    his defiance of the Supreme Court and the rule of law.
        Now, I would like to ask each of you--we'll start with Mrs.
    Dhillon and then go to Mr. Reitz and Mr. Sauer. Just to be
    clear, in your view, does President Biden's statement hold
    water, and would you follow the rule of law, if confirmed to
    your position?
        Ms. Dhillon. Senator, thank you for that question. I, too,
    was surprised at President Biden's reaction to that order,
    because the order itself, I think most lawyers, many lawyers,
    would agree, was entirely consistent with the law. No argument
    was made by the President that the order was unconstitutional,
    illegal, immoral, et cetera. He just simply defied it. So, I
    think that's----
        Senator Lee. Sort of like possession is nine-tenths of the
    law, is what he was saying?
        Ms. Dhillon. Correct. And I think that's a little bit hard
    to swallow. In general, there are many mechanisms for a party
    to disagree with a ruling: seek a stay, seek an appeal, et
    cetera. And those are the steps you would normally take--seek
    reconsideration. In this case, it was, of course, the highest
    court in the land. So in that circumstance, I disagree with the
    President's position.
        Senator Lee. Mr. Reitz?
        Mr. Reitz. Thanks, Senator Lee. Yes, if confirmed, you
    personally, this body, the American people have my absolute
    commitment to always observe the letter of the law. No doubt
    about it. I think my reaction to President Biden's brazenly
    flouting a Supreme Court decision in which he was a litigant
    and thus lawfully bound to the holding of that Court was
    disappointing and unlawful.
        Senator Lee. Mr. Sauer?
        Mr. Sauer. Thank you, Senator Lee. I agree with my
    colleagues. On a personal note, as Senator Schmitt mentioned in
    his introduction, we were directly involved in litigating on
    that issue in the decision that became Nebraska against Biden.
    So, having taken all those efforts, those sorts of statements
    were particularly troubling.
        Senator Lee. Right.
        Mr. Sauer. And, if confirmed, I will follow the rule of
    law.
        Senator Lee. Thank you. Mrs. Dhillon, the position to which
    you've been appointed--to which you've been nominated, is one
    that in some ways gets to the essence of the professional
    obligation we have as lawyers to represent clients as they come
    to us, even--especially--when that client happens to be
    unpopular--even, especially, when that client doesn't
    necessarily have the winds of public opinion at his or her
    back.
        Now, you've had a prestigious career in civil rights law,
    in which you've represented unpopular clients, in which you've
    represented people who have been forgotten by much of society,
    and even much of the modern civil rights movement. How do you
    believe the Civil Rights Division can be utilized in order to
    look out for those people?
        Ms. Dhillon. Thank you, Senator Lee, for that question. The
    Civil Rights Division was established in 1957, and it has a
    long and storied history of standing up for some of the most
    important heroes in the civil rights movement, including
    looking into violent crimes against many marchers in the civil
    rights movement and other important figures--Martin Luther
    King, Jr., and others. And so I would view my role, if
    confirmed, to be consistent with that obligation.
        And as a lawyer involved in First Amendment cases, you're
    often asked to defend and protect some of the most outrageous
    and unpopular speech. My work at the ACLU and dating back to
    college has taught me the importance of standing up for the
    rights of free speech and rights of individuals to protest,
    whether you agree or disagree with the subject matter or not.
    And that would definitely be my charter, if confirmed. Thank
    you, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Thank you. Mr. Sauer, you've been nominated to
    serve as Solicitor General of the United States. The Solicitor
    General, of course, performs many of the roles that a lot of
    Americans probably associate with the Attorney General. You are
    the chief litigator for the United States Government,
    particularly in matters pending before the U.S. Supreme Court
    and other Federal appellate courts. Consequently, in that
    position, if confirmed, you'll have a client.
        So, I've got two closely related, very important questions
    connected to that. Number one, who is your client? Number two,
    will you wear the morning suit, if confirmed as Solicitor
    General?
        Senator Moody. You can answer briefly.
        Mr. Sauer. Yes. Your client--as the Solicitor General, if I
    were to be confirmed--would be the United States and the people
    of the United States. Your fidelity would be to the
    Constitution and the rule of law. And I commit to wearing the
    morning suit, but I will not look nearly as good as your father
    did when he wore it.
        Senator Lee. Terrific. Thank you.
        Senator Moody. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. I was over at an ag
    hearing, which was just a little more mellow, so I am happy to
    be here. Ms. Dhillon, I know we're going to talk on the phone
    at some point soon, and I appreciated that you're willing to do
    that.
        I've led efforts to protect voters' access to the polls and
    the security of our elections--the Freedom to Vote Act, setting
    basic national standards to make sure all Americans can vote in
    a way that works best for them, regardless of their zip code.
    John Lewis once said, ``The right to vote is precious and
    almost sacred and one of the most important blessings of our
    democracy.'' Today, we must be vigilant in protecting that
    blessing. Do you agree?
        Ms. Dhillon. Senator, I agree with everything that you said
    with respect to the importance of the right to vote. I think it
    is a sacred right, and I promise to safeguard that right, if
    confirmed to this position.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. Your comment earlier,
    though--you've written about the Voting Rights Act, referring
    to it as a law--and this was in 2022--referring to it as a law
    that, quote, ``was once''--and I emphasize once--``necessary to
    push back on Jim Crow Laws.'' I'm concerned about, of course, a
    Civil Rights Division under your leadership, whether or not it
    will enforce the Voting Rights Act.
        Isn't it true that 2 years ago the Supreme Court reaffirmed
    Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits States and
    localities from enacting laws or taking actions that have the
    effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on the basis
    of race?
        Ms. Dhillon. That's correct, Senator. And I would add that
    I don't know the full context of the quote that you read, but,
    of course, we all know that the United States Supreme Court has
    actually struck down provisions of the Voting Rights Act as
    unconstitutional, specifically Section 4(a), which effectively
    renders Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act a nullity unless
    Congress acts to----
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
        Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. Fill in the gap.
        Senator Klobuchar. I was referring to Section 2 of the
    Voting Rights Act, in Allen v. Milligan. But will you commit--
    the bigger thing, for me--to vigorous enforcement of Section 2
    of the Voting Rights Act, including with respect to groups that
    have been subject to historic discrimination on the basis of
    race, ethnicity, or language minority status?
        Ms. Dhillon. Thank you, Senator. I would have to see the
    facts, but if the facts merited a Section 2 investigation and/
    or legal action, I would certainly pursue that.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Will you commit to not reassigning
    or firing career attorneys in the Division based on their
    political and ideological affiliations, who they voted for, or
    their views of the 2020 election?
        Ms. Dhillon. Senator, without getting into the job itself
    and understanding all of the motivations of individuals, I
    can't really commit to any particular personnel decisions.
    However, I will say that in my home State of California, you
    know, we have laws about that, and that is certainly my general
    practice--to not react against people based on their--solely on
    their political views.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Mr. Sauer, at the nomination
    hearing for President Trump's first-term Solicitor General Noel
    Francisco, Chair Grassley said, quote, ``It is the
    responsibility of the Solicitor General to defend the law even
    when they don't personally agree with the law,'' end quote.
        Mr. Francisco agreed, stating that the Solicitor General is
    a lawyer representing the United States, what matters are the
    views expressed by the United States in the statutes that this
    body passes. Do you agree it is the duty of the Justice
    Department to defend the laws Congress passes, and will you
    commit to do so even when the President may disagree with an
    Act, campaign against its passage, or call for its repeal?
        Mr. Sauer. I believe Mr. Francisco stated that the duty of
    the Solicitor General is to defend the validity of
    congressional enactments when there are reasonable arguments
    available to do so. I think he noted an exception in certain
    cases where there's a conflict between a claim of encroachment
    on the President's Article II authority, and I would commit to
    following those principles that he outlined in his testimony.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. I also note that on her first
    day in office, the Attorney General issued a memo in which she
    said DOJ lawyers must be zealous advocates for their client's
    interest. And then she said--and this was troubling to many of
    us--``and to do otherwise deprives the President of the
    benefits of his lawyers.'' When you served as a prosecutor in
    the Eastern District of Missouri during the Obama
    administration, did you see yourself as President Obama's
    lawyer?
        Mr. Sauer. I believe as an attorney for the Department of
    Justice at any level, as I said to Senator Lee, the client of
    that attorney would be the United States or the people of the
    United States.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. So, thank you. And all
    Justice lawyers, as you know, take an oath to the Constitution,
    and as you noted, their client is the people of the United
    States. I asked this of Todd Blanche, and he answered that is
    true. And so your client will, in fact, be the United States
    Government and the United States of America, and not the
    President. That's right?
        Mr. Sauer. I stand by my prior answer.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you very much.
    Appreciate it.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Appreciate all
    of you being here today. Certainly, I think, based on my
    history as a Federal prosecutor and a judge and attorney
    general of the State of Florida, I think the roles in which you
    are volunteering to serve and have accepted these nominations
    are some of the most important roles in our Government,
    especially at this moment in time, when so many people believe,
    so many Americans believe that the Department of Justice and
    agencies within it have been used to unfairly target those that
    may hold a different political preference or persuasion.
        It is so important for the stability and consistency and
    long-term success of this Nation to have people like you--
    patriots, passionate about this country and its founding
    principles--in these roles, to assure Americans that we are
    going to bring this back to a place where Americans can trust
    that you are in true--that the institution of the Department of
    Justice is a shield protecting not only Americans' safety but
    their inalienable rights. Do you believe at its core that is
    one of the missions that you will fulfill? And I'll ask each of
    you to answer, please.
        Mr. Sauer. Thank you very much for the question, Senator.
    And I greatly appreciated the ability to work with you and your
    staff, when I was in the State attorney general's office, on
    many important issues.
        Senator Moody. Oh, and let me just pause right here. I know
    that you've said that you equally adored the two Missouri
    attorney generals, but you never said which attorney general on
    the dais you liked and respected the most, and, you know----
        Senator Schmitt. There's only one here right now.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Moody. You can always go with Florida.
        Mr. Sauer. Yes.
        Senator Moody. It doesn't have to be your home State.
        Mr. Sauer. There are many wonderful public servants in the
    room, and I respect them all greatly. In response to your
    question, yes, I don't think I can improve on the way that this
    principle is expressed in the quotations from President Trump's
    inaugural address that I referenced in my opening statement.
        Senator Moody. Mr. Reitz?
        Mr. Reitz. I 100 percent agree with you, Senator Moody.
        Senator Moody. Ms. Dhillon?
        Ms. Dhillon. And, Senator, I would agree with you, as well.
        Senator Moody. At this time, without objection I would like
    to introduce for the record a letter from all four women
    Republican attorneys general, my former colleagues, where they
    voiced support for you, Ms. Dhillon. And we'll enter that into
    the record without objection.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Moody. One of the things that they highlighted, and
    I noted that we share this in common--and most people don't
    know this about you because they hear what's only pushed and
    highlighted within the media--but as a young lawyer and
    continuing through this day, you have, without charge, free of
    charge, using your skills as an attorney, for pro bono,
    defended victims, sought justice for victims of sex trafficking
    and domestic violence.
        I remember, after working long days at my law firm, going
    and sitting at the courthouse and helping victims of domestic
    violence. I believe that shows your heart for protecting the
    most vulnerable in their time of need that may not understand
    how to navigate the court system and understand that the court
    system is there for their protection. And I believe that's what
    you will bring in heart and spirit and passion to this role. To
    that end, you've spoken to this.
        As attorney general, I was one of the first to request that
    a large corporation be investigated for discrimination for some
    of their hiring practices, using racial quotas. I also brought
    suit, one of the first of the kind in the Nation, when
    pregnancy crisis centers were being firebombed and threatening
    messages were being written on them, to make sure that we were
    protecting the life of those that are pro-life--or protecting
    the rights of pro-life Americans. Many of these duties would
    fall under the DOJ.
        I hope that you will go back and review--or that might not
    have been done under the last administration. And do you assure
    this body and this Committee that you will make every effort to
    do what this Government is intended to do, why it was set up to
    be a government of the free people--first and foremost, to
    protect our rights. Will you confirm for this body that you
    will make sure that every American is protected under your
    tenure and leadership?
        Ms. Dhillon. Senator, thank you for that question, and I'm
    deeply touched by the support from the women attorneys general.
    And it is an issue dear to my heart. But absolutely, as I
    mentioned, my entire legal career has spoken to the fact that
    protecting the rights of the defenseless and following the law
    and enforcing those Civil Rights Laws is, has, and will be a
    passion of mine and a top priority, to make sure that the
    defenseless and those who look to the United States for justice
    will certainly have an open door in the Civil Rights Division.
        Senator Moody. Thank you so much. And in under 5 minutes, I
    am concluding my questioning----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Moody [continuing]. As a model for all of my
    colleagues. All right. We will now turn it over to Senator
    Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was hoping you'd
    confer to me your extra 15 seconds, but----
        Senator Moody. Not a chance.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Padilla. Colleagues, before I jump into my
    questions for the nominees before us, I just have to express
    not just disappointment but alarm. There's been a number of
    Department of Justice nominees that have come before us--most,
    if not all, you know, echoing over and over again the respect
    for the Constitution, the commitment for the Constitution,
    commitment to the rule of law.
        Yet, when pressed about whether or not they would be loyal
    to the Constitution versus potential directives or decisions
    contrary to existing law and the Constitution, they don't give
    strong answers, at least none that give us the comfort level
    that the American people need and deserve.
        When it comes to something as simple as, the existing law
    says this, a court has ordered the administration to stop doing
    that--to obfuscate, to not--I mean, I can't remember a time in
    history when, of all the nominees, Department of Justice--high-
    ranking Department of Justice officials not adamantly defending
    the balance of power, co-equal branches of Government, the
    checks and balances built into the Constitution. It's telling
    of the political times that we're living in--and alarming.
        That being said, I know my time is limited, so let me jump
    into a couple of questions for the folks before us. First, for
    Mr. Sauer. Now, as Solicitor General, you're tasked with
    representing the United States before the Supreme Court, should
    you be confirmed.
        As an attorney, though, admitted to any State bar in the
    country, you're tasked with obeying and defending the
    Constitution of the United States. The President's already
    defied the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent in issuing
    an Executive order in regards to birthright citizenship.
        We talked about this in my office. I told you I was going
    to ask it in this hearing. Can you please articulate for the
    Committee the current binding Supreme Court precedent with
    respect to birthright citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment?
        Mr. Sauer. Thank you, Senator Padilla, for the question,
    and thank you for the opportunity to meet with you. I really
    appreciated the cordial conversation that we had on Monday
    evening in your office. I do recall that, in that conversation,
    you asked me to look at certain 19th century Supreme Court
    decisions, and I agreed to do that. I have done that since
    then. However, given that this is a matter that would be very
    likely to come within my purview, I don't think it would be
    appropriate for me to comment on----
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Another dodge. Thank you. Ms.
    Dhillon, now your record demonstrates to me--and as a fellow
    Californian, I've seen your work closely.
        You've opposed key voting rights protections over the
    years, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
    You fought against the use of the Voting Rights Act to
    challenge discriminatory laws. You've also spread
    disinformation about the 2020 election, and you've defended
    restrictive voting laws in multiple States.
        Now, in 2019, you sued the California Department of Motor
    Vehicles, alleging issues with the State's Motor Voter program.
    However, an audit found no widespread voter fraud. The lawsuit
    was unsuccessful. And that was just one of, I think, about 10
    lawsuits that you brought against the State when I was
    secretary of State. All unsuccessful, many dismissed. Will you
    commit--or how can you convince us that, based on this track
    record, that you would equally enforce, fairly enforce voting
    rights through the Department of Justice?
        Ms. Dhillon. Thank you for your question, Senator. When we
    had the opportunity to meet in your office yesterday, I gave
    you one example of California's failure to abide by the NVRA
    and make its voter rolls clean, and that is one million
    ``voters,'' quote, unquote, in Los Angeles County alone, which
    the County of Los Angeles agreed in a consent----
        Senator Padilla. My recollection----
        Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. Decree not to----
        Senator Padilla. So, I'm going to cut you off, because my
    time is limited. My recollection is the County agreed to adopt
    additional practices on maintaining voter rolls. All the
    lawsuits were unsuccessful.
        Ms. Dhillon. Well, that's not true, factually, Senator.
    Actually, I've won----
        Senator Padilla. In----
        Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. Several lawsuits against
    California at the United States Supreme Court during the time--
    --
        Senator Padilla. In the interest of my time----
        Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. That you were the secretary of
    State.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Left, a couple of questions
    for Mr. Reitz. Thank you for being here. Appreciate the time in
    my office. As part of our homework, I came across some
    disturbing social media posts of yours. I'd like to present
    them for the record and ask if they are indeed you, as they
    appear to be.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Padilla. In February 2021, you wrote, ``Bostock is
    the worst SCOTUS decision since Obergefell. We all knew that'd
    be the case. But the left's almost total reliance on Bostock to
    support its insane cram-down of the radical LGBTQ agenda is
    breathtaking.'' Is this you? Yes or no?
        Mr. Reitz. Senator Padilla, it was indeed nice visiting----
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Mr. Reitz [continuing]. With you the other day, and----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Padilla. April 2021: ``Friendly reminder that
    birthright citizenship is not a thing.'' Is this your post? Yes
    or no?
        Mr. Reitz. That appears to be my X handle. Yes, Senator.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. November 2020: ``Once again,
    Chip is one of a tiny handful of Texas Republicans with a
    spine, unwilling to capitulate to an obviously fraudulent
    election. Wish there were others.'' Was this you or not?
        Mr. Reitz. That appears to be my X handle. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. And last, for the record--I
    know my time is up.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Padilla. In September 2020, I believe it was:
    ``Bring back the good old days.'' For the record, this is a
    picture of the infamous Joe McCarthy. Was this your post? Yes
    or no?
        Mr. Reitz. That appears to be my X handle, Senator.
        Senator Padilla. Enough said. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Cruz [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Padilla.
    Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do find it
    fascinating, though, that my friends on the other side of the
    aisle are very concerned all of a sudden about an
    administration ignoring Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Sauer, you
    and I brought the student loan debt forgiveness case. We won at
    the Supreme Court, and Joe Biden said, the Supreme Court
    blocked me. That didn't stop me. So, this lawlessness we've
    seen over the last 4 years--all of a sudden my Democrat friends
    have found religion on abiding by Supreme Court decisions.
        Ms. Dhillon, I want to ask you a couple questions. My
    colleagues on the other side tell us that you're a threat to
    civil rights. The truth is, I think you're one of the fiercest
    advocates of civil rights in a generation. On paper, civil
    rights are supposed to mean protection from discrimination
    based on characteristics like race. In practice, the entire
    civil rights bureaucracy as it currently exists is a vehicle
    for an entrenched new system of discrimination based on race.
        The left is right about one thing, in my view. There is
    systemic racism that exists in America today, but it's not Jim
    Crow or redlining or our criminal justice system. It's the
    pervasive racial discrimination that exists against Asians,
    whites, and other disfavored groups that take place now on
    college campuses, in the board rooms of Fortune 500 companies,
    even in the halls of our own Government. It goes by a bunch of
    different names, principally equity or DEI or CRT. You can go
    on and on. But whatever you want to call it, it's wrong, and it
    has to stop.
        As Chief Justice Roberts eloquently put it, the best way to
    stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop
    discriminating on the basis of race. And that's one of the
    reasons I like you. I think, unlike most, quote, unquote,
    ``major civil rights organizations'' today, you oppose racial
    discrimination in all forms. So, I want to ask you, is reverse
    racism still racism?
        Ms. Dhillon. Thank you for the question, Senator. I don't
    even use the term, reverse racism. It's just racism----
        Senator Schmitt. Yes.
        Ms. Dhillon [continuing]. To discriminate on the basis of
    race.
        Senator Schmitt. I agree with you. And do civil rights
    protections apply equally to all races?
        Ms. Dhillon. In my view, yes, they do, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. Okay. In my view, we've got to root out
    this wokeism and this discrimination that's been under the
    cover--this cultural Marxism of DEI that I'm glad President
    Trump is taking out of the Federal Government.
        But you've seen this, obviously, play out in the private
    sector, as well. In 2023, Target--the company, Target, the
    store, explicitly stated that as part of its REACH initiative,
    it wanted to hire 20 percent more Black employees, an overt
    racial quota system. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
    prohibits discrimination in employment based on race, color,
    religion, sex, and national origin.
        Racial quotas violate our civil rights. Does Target's
    practice of having racial quotas raise red flags for you?
        Ms. Dhillon. Well, Senator, if the facts are as you just
    described them, I believe that practice is illegal and
    unconstitutional.
        Senator Schmitt. And so one of the things that I find
    fascinating, based on--from the last administration, you know,
    against companies like SpaceX, for example, the Biden
    administration brought hundreds--hundreds--of civil rights
    actions. How many actions did the Biden administration bring
    against DEI racial quotas? Are you aware?
        Ms. Dhillon. I'm not aware of any, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. Well, I know the answer to it. It's
    ``Blutarsky.'' It's zero point zero. None. Because this is the
    truth. My friends on the other side had a system in place that
    needs to fundamentally be dismantled. The left views this,
    again, as cultural Marxism--a way to divide the room by race.
    And it's tearing this country apart.
        You have a really important role that you're going to step
    into when you're confirmed--I think you're going to get
    confirmed--to try to end this. We shouldn't have quotas--racial
    quotas in this country. People should be judged on their
    merits. We need to bring merit back. It's not a four-letter
    word. It's actually a bedrock principle that's made this
    country such a great place. And regardless of your skin color,
    you should have every opportunity to succeed, but you also
    shouldn't be held back because of your skin color, either.
        And again, I think this leftist movement that the Democrats
    have been captured by, they totally lost the plot. And the
    American people have rejected it. Part of what the American
    people did in November, I think, is they sat in that jury box
    and they watched all this craziness over the last 4 years, and
    they rejected it. And you, given your background and your
    experience and I think your grit to fight these tough fights--I
    couldn't think of anybody more qualified to do the job that
    you're about to do. So, congratulations, and you have my
    support. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Schmitt. And I would like
    the record to reflect I believe this is the first time in the
    history of the Republic the word Blutarsky has been used in the
    Senate Judiciary Committee.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz. And with that, Senator Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sauer, you've
    served as one of the President's defense lawyers. Should cases
    arise in the Justice Department involving the same cases in
    which you represented him, will you recuse yourself?
        Mr. Sauer. Senator, thank you for the question. As
    reflected in the ethics agreement that I have signed and in the
    regulations of the Department of Justice, as to any matter that
    were to come before me that might require a recusal obligation,
    I would consult with the Department of Justice ethics officials
    and follow my recusal obligations.
        Senator Schiff. So, you'll consult with the career ethics
    lawyers at the Department?
        Mr. Sauer. Yes, that's correct.
        Senator Schiff. You are aware, of course, that the career
    ethics officials at the Department have been fired, demoted,
    transferred--they no longer exist. The two people in that
    office are one of your fellow criminal defense lawyers of
    Donald Trump and a political appointee who graduated from law
    school just a few years ago. They don't exist. So, who are you
    going to consult? Are you going to go to one of his other
    criminal defense lawyers to find out if you should recuse
    yourself?
        Mr. Sauer. Senator, I--the--I'm not aware of any personnel
    actions that you've described, so I can't speak directly to
    those. I've just recently been through a process where I was
    consulting closely with a career DOJ----
        Senator Schiff. I'll tell you----
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. Attorney----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Mr. Sauer, those actions have
    taken place. And the two appointees are political appointees.
    The people who'll make the recusal recommendations to you are
    political appointees. One was Mr. Bove's former chief of staff,
    the other was a fellow criminal defense lawyer for Donald
    Trump. If that's who you're going to for recusal advice, no one
    can have confidence that that judgment will be made properly.
        But let me move on to another question. You took the
    position, as Donald Trump's lawyer, that he could order SEAL
    Team Six to assassinate a political opponent and not be
    prosecuted for it unless he was impeached first. Should the
    President order the use of violence against a political
    opponent? Will that continue to be your position as the lawyer
    for the United States? Will you represent to the court that any
    prosecution should be dismissed if the President is not first
    impeached?
        Mr. Sauer. Senator, I believe the exchange that you're
    referring to, which occurred during oral argument in the D.C.
    Circuit in that Presidential immunity decision--I was asked a
    question about that, and what I responded was that the
    President may be prosecuted for an action like that. But under
    the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause, he must
    be first impeached and convicted by the Senate.
        Senator Schiff. And as----
        Mr. Sauer. And therefore----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. The judge in that argument
    made clear, that means your position is he cannot be prosecuted
    unless he's impeached first. So, he could order the use of his
    office to use violence against a political opponent, and you
    would defend his ability to do that in any criminal
    prosecution, unless he's impeached. Is that your testimony?
        Mr. Sauer. I believe the situation came up with respect to
    a real-world example----
        Senator Schiff. Well, I'm----
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. Where President--if I may----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. I'm giving you----
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. If I may? The----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. I'm giving you--yes.
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. President----
        Senator Schiff. You'll answer my question?
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. Obama--yes. I believe I am
    answering the question. President Obama ordered the essential
    killing of U.S. citizens located abroad, by drone strike, and
    my colleague on the other side of that case was asked----
        Senator Schiff. Well, my question is not about President
    Obama and using a drone strike against a terrorist. My question
    is Donald Trump using his office to assassinate a political
    opponent. If he's not impeached for it, would you defend
    against any prosecution, as Solicitor General?
        Mr. Sauer. The hypothetical you've offered, respectfully,
    is so outlandish, I don't know if I'm in a position to address
    it.
        Senator Schiff. Well, you addressed it for the court, but
    you won't address it for the country in this hearing?
        Mr. Sauer. I think I've just said exactly the same response
    that I gave----
        Senator Schiff. Okay, then----
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. In court, which is----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Exactly the same response is
    that you would evidently defend him against prosecution for
    that.
        Let me move on to the last question. The Department moved
    to dismiss a corruption case against the mayor of New York. The
    Acting Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney refused to
    undertake an action that she believed was deeply unethical. So,
    then it fell on her number two, Hagan Scotten, to do the dirty
    deed of dismissing this case.
        This is what he said: ``Any assistant U.S. attorney would
    know our laws and traditions do not allow using the
    prosecutorial power to influence other citizens, much less
    elected officials, in this way. If no lawyer within earshot of
    the President is willing to give him that advice, then I expect
    you will eventually find someone who is enough of a fool or
    enough of a coward to file your motion. But it was never going
    to be me.'' My question to you, Mr. Sauer, is, would that be
    you?
        Mr. Sauer. Would I--would that----
        Senator Schiff. Would that be you, if it fell to you to
    dismiss that case? Would you be the coward or fool willing to
    dismiss that case on behalf of the President?
        Mr. Sauer. I certainly can't speak to any official action
    that I might or might not take in a hypothetical scenario. I
    will say that there was a distressing lack of letters like this
    during the weaponization of Justice----
        Senator Schiff. Well, there is a disturbing presence of
    letters like this, and your answer tells me that it would be
    you. My colleagues have praised your legal skills. I have no
    doubt about your knowledge of the law, but to me, you can't be
    a good lawyer if you use the law to subvert the law--if you use
    our system to undermine our system. And I'm deeply afraid
    that's what you've done and that's what you will do in this
    position. I yield back.
        Senator Cruz. Let me say to the three of you, thank you for
    agreeing to serve our Nation. Thank you for going to the
    Department of Justice. I will note my Democrat colleagues who
    are suddenly deeply concerned about the rule of law all seem to
    have entered the Witness Protection Program during the 4 years
    of the Biden Presidency, when the Biden Department of Justice
    was the most lawless and partisan Department of Justice our
    Nation has ever seen.
        And not a single Democrat on this Committee could be
    bothered to be concerned in the slightest about the
    weaponization of the Department of Justice to attack President
    Biden's political opponents, about Merrick Garland's refusal to
    enforce the law, including refusing to protect Supreme Court
    Justices when a clear Federal statute made it a crime to
    protest and threaten the lives and families of Supreme Court
    Justices--and yet the Biden Department of Justice refused to
    follow that law.
        Now, Mr. Sauer, I will note that you have a--you and I
    share a lot of legal history. We both attended the same law
    school. We both clerked for the same judge, Michael Luttig, on
    the court of appeals. You clerked for the late, great Justice
    Antonin Scalia. We both started our legal career practicing
    under Chuck Cooper, one of the finest Supreme Court litigators
    on the planet.
        You've been nominated to an incredibly important position:
    Solicitor General of the United States, a position frequently
    referred to as the tenth Justice. It is the only position in
    the entire Federal Government that is required by statute to
    be, quote, ``learned in the law.''
        I will note I am grateful that is not a requirement to
    serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. But I would ask you to
    share with this Committee and share with the American people,
    what is the responsibility of the Solicitor General, and how
    will you carry out this task, if and when you are confirmed?
        Mr. Sauer. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you for the
    question. Thank you for the opportunity to meet and discuss
    legal issues facing the United States. I believe I responded to
    earlier questions that the role of the Solicitor General is to
    defend both the statutes of the United States that are enacted
    by Congress and the Executive actions of the executive branch.
    The Solicitor General does so on behalf of the client of the
    U.S. Department of Justice, which is the United States, the
    American people--and does so consistent with and with fidelity
    to the Constitution and the rule of law.
        Senator Cruz. Well, thank you. And I have every confidence
    you will do exactly that. Mrs. Dhillon, as a Sikh woman who
    immigrated to the United States at a young age, how has your
    background shaped your understanding of civil rights? And how
    can that perspective enhance the Civil Rights Division in
    advocating for all Americans from all backgrounds?
        Ms. Dhillon. Thank you for that question, Senator. I would
    put it this way. My faith itself teaches first: openness to
    all; respect for all; and protecting the defenseless. Those are
    among the tenets of the Sikh faith. And so that is why you see
    so many Sikhs volunteering in war-torn areas and doing relief
    work around the world. And so it's actually a tenet of our
    faith to contribute toward those efforts.
        So, it's been my entire career that I have served in that
    capacity, motivated by my faith and my teachings in my home.
    And my career has also demonstrated many instances, as other
    Senators have mentioned, of pro bono work, doing work for
    people who could not get a lawyer otherwise. And so I'm proud
    of that work.
        In the Civil Rights Division, there is a long and storied
    history of doing exactly the same thing, which is standing up
    for the most disadvantaged individuals in our United States and
    ensuring equal justice for all. And so I would definitely be
    informed by those lifetime experiences, including 32 years as a
    lawyer representing the underprivileged.
        Senator Cruz. And let me ask you, how have your experiences
    as someone who's been subjected to racial profiling and abuse--
    and, in particular, the incident in 1995 when you and your
    husband were attacked on a bus--can you please briefly describe
    that and how that will inform how you will carry out the role
    of running the Civil Rights Division?
        Ms. Dhillon. Well, thank you, Senator. In the early 90s, as
    a newlywed, I got a terrible phone call from the chaplain at
    NYU that my husband, who was a medical resident in that
    program, had been shot and brought to NYU. He'd been shot in
    the chest by a racist who confronted him on a crowded New York
    City bus during rush hour and told him to get out of his face
    and to apologize--and used numerous ethnic slurs. And when my
    then-husband refused to apologize, he was shot.
        And so it really brought home to me that no matter what
    your education, your affluence, your background, there are
    instances in which bigots and racists will operate in society
    to try to harm people, and it is up to lawyers to then stand up
    to that and make sure that there are severe punishments.
    Unfortunately, that was New York City, and in that case the
    person was not severely punished for shooting my then-husband
    in the chest.
        Senator Cruz. Wow. That's truly horrible. Mr. Reitz, I have
    one question for you. Will you tell this Committee what the
    Rule Against Perpetuities is?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Reitz. If the Chairman will grant me--I know that we're
    over time. If I may answer?
        Senator Cruz. You may answer.
        Mr. Reitz. No interest is good unless it must vest, if at
    all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the
    creation of the interest.
        Senator Cruz. Very good.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz. I want to enter into the record multiple
    letters in support of Mr. Reitz's nomination: a letter from the
    National Association of Police Organizations; a letter from
    former editorial board members of the Texas Review of Law &
    Politics; a letter from the MLK Association of Texas; a letter
    from the chairman of the Board of Regents at Texas Southern
    University; a letter from the Village in the Valley; and a
    letter from Pastor Willie Davis and Houston City Council Member
    Willie Davis. And without objection these are all entered into
    the record.
        [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
        Senator Cruz. And, Senator Welch, you're recognized.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Mr. Reitz, it was very
    nice to visit with you yesterday, and it's nice to see your
    kids. You promised they were going to be here--your wife and a
    couple of your kids. That's great. All of us are kind of amazed
    you're the cheerful person you are, having survived working for
    this guy named Cruz from Texas.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Welch. I'll tell you, it's hard on us, but we can
    imagine what it's like for the Chief of Staff. You know, this
    is a----
        Senator Cruz. Your time is expired.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Welch. You know, to all of you, let me express what
    is a concern I think many of us have. It's not a Democrat-
    Republican thing. But there's a profoundly new set of
    expectations and boundaries in what the Executive power is now.
        We've had decisions by the Supreme Court that gives
    immunity to the President. I find that shocking. I think a
    President has to be subject to the law, not above the law. We
    also have a President who's been very explicit and determined
    in his insistence that it's, quote, ``my Justice Department''
    and, you know, has also made the statement that if he does it
    to save the country, it's lawful.
        That's--that's unique. We haven't had that point of view
    embedded in, to some extent, in the--there's some validation
    with what the Supreme Court is doing and also what the
    President is asserting. That causes me great concern, because I
    think it really threatens the separation of powers and the co-
    equal authority of Congress to be a check and balance.
        And all of you will have major positions that will require
    you basically to serve the interest of the President, and we
    all understand that, but where there's a real redefinition of
    that Presidential authority.
        So, I want to ask a little bit about that. I'll ask you,
    Mr. Reitz. I know your tweet was--you were asked about that:
    Can the President basically violate the law? Just tell me where
    you come from in terms of what the limits are on Presidential
    authority.
        Mr. Reitz. Well, thank you. And it was really a pleasure
    visiting with you and your staff just yesterday. Senator, if I
    could just clarify. You referenced a tweet in which I said the
    President has unlimited power?
        Senator Welch. Let me--I'll get to the tweet. I thought
    Senator Durbin had displayed it. I was told that. Do you have
    it? ``Looking for some Andrew Jackson-level leadership on this
    one. Judge Yeakel has made his decision. Now let him enforce
    it.'' So, it's the famous Jackson dictum that we can
    essentially disregard the decision of the Supreme Court.
        Mr. Reitz. Thank you for that, and thank you for
    clarifying, Senator Welch. So, my position reflects a fairly
    mainstream view within right-of-center jurisprudential circles,
    which is simply to suggest that various Supreme Court or court
    of appeals decisions are more limited in scope than maybe our
    friends who share a different jurisprudential view of Supreme
    Court holding would suggest.
        Senator Welch. Well, let's say there is a Supreme Court
    holding saying that a Presidential policy is invalid. You know,
    President Trump has said he can do basically anything, if it's
    to save the country. That's his motivation. And that anything
    would include disregarding the order of the Court if, in the
    judgment of the President, if his disregarding that order was
    to save the country.
        Mr. Reitz. So, Senator, first I think the--I'm not aware of
    any instance in which President Trump genuinely stated that he
    can do anything to save the country.
        Senator Welch. All right. Well, I'm asking--maybe it's a
    hypothetical, but I actually don't think it--this is a
    hypothetical in that it hasn't happened yet. But it's a
    hypothetical based on very explicit decisions, one by the
    Supreme Court on immunity, another by President Trump's own
    statements. Mr. Sauer, do you believe the President has the
    authority, in the name of saving the country, to disregard a
    decision by the Supreme Court?
        Mr. Sauer. To be clear, I think, as I stated earlier,
    Senator, I have had the privilege of representing President
    Trump for much of the last 2 years, and----
        Senator Welch. I'm not asking that.
        Mr. Sauer [continuing]. I've never----
        Senator Welch. You know what I'm asking.
        Mr. Sauer. I'm sorry. I didn't hear what you said.
        Senator Welch. I'm not asking about the privilege you had
    of serving the President. I'm asking the question--you heard my
    question: Can the President disregard the order because, in his
    opinion, he's acting in a way that will, quote, ``save the
    country'' ?
        Mr. Sauer. I think the answer that I was trying to give,
    respectfully, is that I've represented President Trump for 2
    years, and I've never seen anything that would lead me to
    believe that I'd be put in any situation.
        Senator Welch. You know what? I get it. You respect him.
    You like him. He was your lawyer. But I'm not asking about
    that. I give you that. Right. But the President has now
    asserted that he has the right basically to do what he thinks
    is necessary to save the country, and I'm asking whether that
    includes violating a Supreme Court order.
        Mr. Sauer. I think I would just refer back to the answers I
    gave earlier to the similar questions from the Ranking Member.
        Senator Welch. Well, how about answering my question, now
    that I'm here?
        Mr. Sauer. Well, there was a lively exchange about that.
    But again, I've represented President Trump for 2 years. I've
    never been put in any situation like that, and I don't----
        Senator Welch. You know, I've just got to say, Mr.
    Chairman, that's a little bit frustrating. I understand that he
    has a good relationship with the President, respects him. All
    right? And the President has never put him in that position.
    But we're in a new situation here. The President is now the
    President. He's made these statements. There is a real
    question, an emerging unitary Executive authority.
        This is a very serious question that we've never had to
    face before: Can the President disregard a decision by the
    Supreme Court? And, you know what, I'll yield back. But I want
    to just express my frustration at not getting a direct answer
    on what I think is an existential question for this country.
        Senator Cruz. Well, I will note the witnesses did point out
    that President Trump has been President for 4 years and 1 month
    now, and he has never disregarded a Court order. And we just
    finished 4 years of Joe Biden routinely disregarding the law--
    in no instance more flagrantly than concerning our Southern
    Border, where he defied Federal immigration law and allowed 12
    million illegal immigrants to come into this country.
        And so, the hypotheticals that are being posed by our
    Democrat colleagues, sadly, we have lived, in the last 4
    years--when you have a lawless President who does not follow
    the statutes passed by Congress and signed into the United
    States Code. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The credentials
    of each of you are impressive. Ms. Dhillon, did you ever have
    Professor Paul Stephan at Virginia Law School?
        Ms. Dhillon. I did, Senator. I think it was my first year.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. He's brilliant. He should be on the
    Federal bench. He would have been, if I had gotten here sooner.
    Mr. Reitz, I introduced Senator Cruz to some of his supporters
    one time. I was asked about him, and I said, no, let me tell
    you about Senator Cruz. He's brilliant. But so was the
    Unabomber.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. You've got to watch him like a hawk. Is
    that a fair description? You don't have to answer that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. Is it true that, after a scotch, Senator
    Cruz can burp the alphabet backward?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. You don't have to answer that, either.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. Let me say something serious for a second,
    and then I'll have one or two questions. You're all adults.
    You're all officers of the court. So, I'm going to give you
    some advice. I may be wrong, but I doubt it. Don't ever, ever
    take the position that you're not going to follow the order of
    a Federal court. Ever. Now, you can disagree with it, within
    the bounds of legal ethics. You can criticize it. You can
    appeal it. Or you can resign.
        For 4 years, I have watched people in this town--not
    everybody, but many--try to undermine the legitimacy of the
    Federal judiciary. And it triggered, each and every time, my
    gag reflex. I've watched them try to pack the Supreme Court. I
    have watched an esteemed Member of this body, on the steps of
    the Supreme Court threaten Justice Gorsuch and Justice
    Kavanaugh. I've seen that.
        I've seen this body--some in good faith but some in bad
    faith--try to impose an unconstitutional, violative of the
    separation of powers doctrine ethics code on the Supreme Court,
    just to try to undermine their legitimacy. Now, all of our
    judiciary has an equal branch of Government as its legitimacy--
    it doesn't have an army. Don't ever say you're not going to
    follow the order of a court. You may not agree with it. But
    that's my advice. And I think you ought to take it.
        Mr. Sauer, I'm glad to see that Hawley took you to a
    Cracker Barrel for lunch.
        Mr. Sauer. Yes, Senator. If you're familiar with the area,
    it's the one near Columbia, Missouri, about halfway through
    Missouri, on I-70----
        Senator Kennedy. I've always thought of Hawley as more of a
    Whole Foods-type guy.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Sauer. I can only say that his description of it was
    accurate. It was chicken fried steak that we were eating.
        Senator Kennedy. I'm glad to see that his taste is getting
    better. Tell me, Mr. Sauer, give me an example of an instance
    where a legislative body could pass a statute discriminating on
    the basis of race--which of course is a suspect
    classification--that could pass the strict scrutiny test.
        Mr. Sauer. I can't think of a hypothetical as I sit here.
    However, I am aware that there is a line of cases holding
    that----
        Senator Kennedy. I am, too. But is there any way that a
    legislative body can pass legislation classifying people on the
    basis of race, that passes strict scrutiny?
        Mr. Sauer. I can't imagine a scenario, as I sit here,
    Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. How does the doctrine of equal protection
    apply to the Federal Government? I know the Fourteenth
    Amendment says that the States can't deny people equal
    protection of the law, but I don't see anything in the
    Constitution about the Federal Government and equal protection.
    It's not in the Fifth Amendment. I'm not suggesting we
    shouldn't, but how does it apply?
        Mr. Sauer. Senator, I believe there's a Supreme Court
    decision from the late 1940s or early 1950s that essentially
    incorporated the doctrine of Equal Protection--people say,
    reverse incorporated the doctrine of Equal Protection through
    the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you agree with the substantive due
    process model?
        Mr. Sauer. I have criticized that doctrine in many of the
    legal briefs that I've filed, that I've disclosed to the
    Committee.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, without it, how would we have equal
    protection of the laws apply to the Federal Government?
        Mr. Sauer. I--I--as I sit here today, I don't dispute the
    holding of what the Supreme Court held about 60, 70 years ago,
    and I accept that as binding law.
        Senator Kennedy. You just think they got the methodology
    wrong?
        Mr. Sauer. Well, you asked about the substantive due
    process doctrine. The doctrine of reverse incorporation is
    different than that, and as I sit here today, I'm not prepared
    to say whether they got it right or got it wrong. I'd have to
    read the opinion again. It is long-settled and binding law, in
    my understanding, though.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. And in light of
    your initial line of questioning, I ask unanimous consent that
    at subsequent hearings, Senator Kennedy be bound and gagged.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz. I'll withdraw that request and recognize
    Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I will take this
    opportunity to put up what I consider to be a red flag of a
    MAGA takeover of the Department of Justice. What we regularly
    see is extremely good bromides until we hit the area of Trump
    sensitivity. We've seen it in this hearing, too. And then it's
    like watching people fly into the Bermuda Triangle, and all the
    navs and comms get weird. And I think that's a very strong
    signal of what folks' intentions are as we go into this.
        ``Project 2025'' author Russ Vought said that it was his
    purpose to impose trauma in the Federal workforce, and I think
    we're seeing those efforts right now with respect to FBI agents
    who were assigned, for instance, to the January 6 cases. We see
    repeated signals that politics now matters.
        We saw Attorney General Bondi ask members of the Department
    of Justice to disavow their own political beliefs in favor of--
    and I'm quoting her here--``the political views that prevailed
    in the election.'' I don't think we've ever heard an Attorney
    General say anything like that before. We see the DC U.S.
    Attorney in office--not formerly, like you, Mr. Sauer--in
    office describe himself now as Trump's lawyer, out to ``protect
    his leadership,'' unquote, when challenged by the media.
        The Department actually has some pretty noble traditions of
    standing against politics and for the law. Recent examples
    include when the Department stood against the Bush
    administration's unlawful warrantless wiretapping scheme and
    threatened mass resignations if it wasn't corrected. And it was
    corrected. That was a good thing.
        The Department itself rejected its own secret, shoddy
    Office of Legal Counsel opinions that had propped up the
    torture program. That was the Department cleaning up its own
    mess, not just going along with the signal from the White
    House. Most recently, you saw the Department stand against
    efforts to involve the Department of Justice in the Georgia
    election subversion scheme.
        To me, those were noble days for the Department. I don't
    see any chance of that happening. What I see in front of me now
    is an Environment and Natural Resources Division that has
    already been decapitated. No coincidence that the biggest
    polluters are the biggest donors to Trump's campaign.
        I see the entire anti-kleptocracy initiative of the
    Department of Justice eliminated, canceled, just as we watch a
    President cozy up to Vladimir Putin. Whatever Trump Russia was,
    it still is, and to take down the Department's effort that goes
    after Russian oligarchs who prop up Putin sends a terrible and,
    to me, unjustifiable signal.
        We have seen a fake grand jury investigation mounted in
    order to create--or at least attempted to be mounted--in order
    to create a pretext to allow a fund that the President objects
    to, but is way too late to veto, to be seized and held back
    from the obligations on it that Congress has provided.
        And recently, we saw a flagrant pretense that the
    withdrawal of the prosecution of New York's mayor was not part
    of an agreement--the Latin term for agreement being quid pro
    quo. And then you saw Tom Homan, from the administration, go
    right onto TV and say, yes, this was an agreement, and if you
    don't honor it, I will be--and I won't use the phrase that he
    used, because it's vulgar.
        I hope that in some way I can call to each of your senses
    of decency so that when the moment comes--which it will--when
    you're asked to choose between the public duties of the
    Department of Justice and the political imperatives of the
    Trump administration, you'll come down on the right side. I'm
    sad to say, I don't see any indication of that right now.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Thank you to
    each of the three witnesses.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman?
        Senator Cruz. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. I want to raise a point of order. I forgot
    to ask William and Caroline if they had anything they wanted to
    add. Anything? How about, vote for my dad?
        [Children speak from the hearing room.]
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for the
    interruption.
        Senator Cruz. An excellent ground to close the hearing.
    Congratulations. Each of the three of you did a terrific job.
    Senator Kennedy did an okay job.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cruz. For everyone's information, written questions
    for the record can be submitted until tomorrow at 5 p.m., and
    the Committee will ask each of the nominees to answer and
    return the questions to the Committee as soon as possible, so
    that we can quickly schedule Committee votes.
        And with that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                A P P E N D I X

    The following submissions are available at:

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg61325/pdf/CHRG-119shrg
        61325-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:

     Accountable.US, et al. (nominees Harmeet Dhillon, Aaron Reitz,
        and Dean John Sauer), reproductive rights and health equity
        organizations, February 25, 2025, letter......................     2

     Alliance for Justice (nominee Harmeet Dhillon), February 25,
        2025, letter..................................................     9

     Equality California, January 13, 2025, letter....................    11

     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, February
        26, 2025, letter..............................................    13

     Legal Defense Fund, February 25, 2025, letter....................    20

     National Council of Jewish Women, February 24, 2025, letter......    25

     National Women's Law Center, February 20, 2025, letter...........    27

     People For the American Way, February 25, 2025, letter...........    33

     Alliance for Justice (nominee Aaron Reitz), February 25, 2025,
        letter........................................................    36

     Alliance for Justice (nominee Dean John Sauer), February 25,
        2025, letter..................................................    38

                                     [all]