[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]