    [Senate Hearing 119-201]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 119-201

                  CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                               SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

                                   ----------

                              Serial No. J-119-36

                                   ----------

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-201

                  CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-119-36

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                       _______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-890                     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
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     3
    Britt, Hon. Katie Boyd...........................................     9
    Coons, Hon. Christopher A........................................    10

                              VISITING INTRODUCERS

    McConnel, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky.................     4
    Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from Mississippi................     6
    Hyde-Smith, Hon. Cindy, U.S. Senator from Mississippi............     7
    Tuberville, Hon. Tommy, U.S. Senator from Alabama................     8

                                    NOMINEES

    Chamberlin, Robert P.............................................    41
        Questionnaire................................................    63
        Responses to written questions...............................   124

    LaCour, Edmund G. Jr.............................................    42
        Questionnaire................................................   172
        Responses to written questions...............................   237
        Additional materials.........................................   314

    Lewis, William W.................................................    43
        Questionnaire................................................   331
        Responses to written questions...............................   370

    Mascott, Jennifer L..............................................    12
        Questionnaire................................................   418
        Responses to written questions...............................   509
        Additional materials.........................................   572

    Maxwell, James Donald II.........................................    43
        Questionnaire................................................   601
        Responses to written questions...............................   681
        Additional materials.........................................   728

    Mooty, Harold D. III.............................................    44
        Questionnaire................................................   730
        Responses to written questions...............................   758

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................   807

                  CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
    Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Cornyn, Lee,
    Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt, Moody, Durbin,
    Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Booker, Padilla,
    Welch, and Schiff.
        Also present: Senators McConnell, Wicker, Hyde-Smith, and
    Tuberville.

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

        Chairman Grassley [audio malfunction occurs]. Good morning.
    I welcome everyone to today's hearing. Our first panel features
    Professor Jennifer Mascott, nominated for Court of Appeals,
    Third Circuit. Panel 2, we will hear from five district court
    nominees, Judges Robert Chamberlin; James Maxwell for the
    Northern District of Mississippi; Edmund LaCour, nominated
    Northern District, Alabama; Justice William Lewis, nominated
    Middle District, Alabama; Harold Mooty, nominated Northern
    District, Alabama.
        Before we begin, I would like to address a few matters up
    front. First, I am disappointed that many highly qualified
    nominees are being held up on the Senate floor. The Senate's
    duty is to provide advice and consent, not manufacture
    gridlock. When nominees clear this Committee, they deserve a
    timely vote. Instead, we've seen well-qualified men and women
    who put their lives on hold and answered the call of public
    service, they're left twisting in the wind for months. That
    weakens our justice system at every level. Vacant judgeships
    mean heavy caseload and long delays. Vacant U.S. attorney
    offices leave communities without Senate-confirmed law
    enforcement leadership. That should concern everybody in this
    country, and particularly in the Senate.
        There was a time when nominees who cleared this Committee
    were confirmed routinely, often as simply by voice vote. Now,
    we see a pattern of delay and obstruct. The losers aren't
    Republicans or Democrats; they are the American people waiting
    for justice. It's time for the Senate to act.
        Second, we have heard time and again from my Democratic
    colleagues that our nominees lack independence from the
    President. Well, that is a turn of events because at the
    Democrats' own partisan spotlight hearing, the Senate Minority
    Leader bragged that Democrats had stacked the bench with
    ``progressive judges.'' He didn't stop there. He celebrated
    their rulings against President Trump and declared, ``Our
    people are the first line of defense.'' Now think about those
    words, ``our people.'' Thats' not the language of an
    independent judiciary. It is the language of political
    ownership. And yet, these are the same Democrats who cry foul
    and actually accuse Republican nominees of being Trump judges.
    The double standard is breathtaking.
        And we're repeatedly hearing from Democrats that nominees
    must follow all court orders. Let me be clear. Following the
    rule of law means obeying lawful court orders. But we now have
    lower court judges who aren't following court orders. As
    Justice Neil Gorsuch put it just a few days ago, ``Lower court
    judges may sometimes disagree with this court's decision, but
    the're never free to defy them.'' He warned that, ``This is now
    the third time in a matter of weeks this court has had to
    intercede in a case squarely controlled by one of our
    precedents.'' He reminded those on the Federal bench that,
    ``When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent
    that commands respect in the lower courts.''
        Justice Brett Kavanaugh has made the same point: ``Members
    of the judiciary have an important responsibility to get it
    right, to do our hard work, to understand our role in the
    constitutional democracy. We are not policymakers.''
        In March, Justice Alito condemned a Federal court for an
    act of ``judicial hubris and self-aggrandizement.'' When the
    highest court in the land uses phrases like defy, hubris, and
    self-aggrandizement to describe what is happening in our
    judiciary, it tells you something has gone terribly wrong. All
    of us should agree lawful Federal court orders must be
    respected. That is not a Republican point or a Democrat point.
    That is the bedrock of the rule of law.
        It is stunning to hear Democrats accuse Republican nominees
    of being Trump judges when their own leaders boast that their
    nominees are ``his people.'' Judges aren't supposed to be
    anybody's people. They belong to a separate branch of
    Government, insulated from partisanship, with only one duty, to
    follow the law, whether you like the outcome or not.
        So that brings us to today's nominees, highly qualified men
    and women who understand the importance of judicial
    independence in our constitutional design. We will hear more
    about Professor Mascott's tremendous resume in just a moment,
    but let me start by acknowledging that she is well-known and
    well-respected by this Committee. This Committee has called on
    Professor Mascott repeatedly to testify about some of the
    toughest constitutional and statutory questions. She also filed
    amicus briefs on behalf of Members of this Committee in very
    important cases. We trusted her judgment then, and we can trust
    it now.
        Professor Mascott's qualifications speak for themselves.
    She clerked for two sitting Supreme Court Justices. The Supreme
    Court has cited her scholarship eight times and even mentioned
    her by name at oral arguments. At George Washington University
    Law School, she earned a record 4.22 GPA. Her professors even
    wrote to this Committee to explain that they often thought her
    exam answers were better than their own answer keys. The kind
    of intellect that that represents, paired with her steady
    judgment, makes Professor Mascott an outstanding nominee for
    the Third Circuit.
        Our district court nominees are also ``well-qualified,''
    and we will look forward to hearing from each of them today.
        As a final point, I will mention that we will have a long
    hearing today, six nominees, two panels, multiple introducers.
    I will ask everyone to keep their remarks limited to 5 minutes,
    allotted to keep the hearing on schedule.
        Senator Durbin.

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

        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley. Welcome back to
    Washington.
        Chairman Grassley. You bet.
        Senator Durbin. I hope the corn crop in Iowa is as good as
    it is in Illinois.
        Chairman Grassley. It is going to be a national record.
        Senator Durbin. National record, I am not surprised, and I
    am sure your farm will lead the way.
        I want to address the issue which you have raised, and very
    importantly raised at this hearing because I think it is time
    that we discuss it openly and find a solution. I share your
    interest in ending the impasse we face on the floor of the
    Senate. For decades, the Senate confirmed U.S. attorneys by
    voice vote or unanimous consent. All 85 of President Trump's
    U.S. attorney nominees during his first administration were
    approved by voice vote, all of them.
        But early in the Biden administration, things changed.
    Senate Republicans began a campaign of obstruction. In April
    2021, Senator Cotton of Arkansas announced he would block
    nominees from any State represented by a Democrat on this
    Committee. Senator Cotton finally lifted his hold in December
    2021, but in February 2022, he again blocked U.S. attorney
    nominees for months. Talk about twisting in the wind. There is
    another case which I recall of supreme twisting in the wind.
    Remember when Anton Scalia died on a hunting trip? How long did
    that vacancy sit there, open, unfilled? At least 10 months. The
    whole last year of the Obama administration, he was unable to
    fill a vacancy on the highest court in the land.
        On June 23, 2023, things changed again. Then-Senator J.D.
    Vance of Ohio announced he would place a blanket hold on ``all
    Department of Justice nominees under Biden,'' including U.S.
    attorneys, to quote--and these are his words, and I attribute
    it to him on the floor--``grind the Justice Department to a
    halt,'' grind the Justice Department to a halt.
        On eight separate occasions in 2023 and 2024, I went to the
    Senate floor to request--really to beg--for a change from
    Senator Vance. Give us consent to confirm these nominees
    according to the Senate tradition. Each time, my efforts were
    blocked by Senator Vance or other Republican Senators on his
    behalf.
        Due to Republican obstruction, President Biden was only
    able to fill 68 of the 93 U.S. attorney positions with Senate-
    confirmed nominees. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, that you did
    not agree with Senator Vance's actions back then, and I don't
    believe you do now, but we can't have one set of rules for
    Republican Presidents and another for Democratic Presidents.
        We also now face a Trump administration making an end run
    around Senate advice-and-consent duties. Senator Coons is here
    from the State of Delaware, and I am sure he will address that
    in a minute. In several blue States, the Trump administration
    has taken an illegal and unprecedented approach to filling U.S.
    attorney vacancies with extreme candidates while making no
    attempt to consult with Democratic Senators.
        I learned during the first Trump administration to sit down
    and work with the Trump White House. We disagreed on almost
    everything. But when it came to filling judicial vacancies, we
    filled every single vacancy that I was party to during his
    administration. We reached an agreement. We both had to
    compromise, and we did. I think that is the way it still should
    work. The path forward cannot result in Republican Senators
    having their preferred U.S. attorney nominees confirmed, while
    Democratic Senators have outrageous picks installed in their
    States in legally dubious ways.
        I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and I
    mean that personally, on a fair and bipartisan solution to this
    problem. It has been created by both parties. We are facing it
    now. Let's do something about it in a civil way, in a fair way,
    and I think we can achieve that.
        I will tell you, I won't go into detail on the Delaware
    nominee. I will leave that to Senator Coons. But I want to
    thank you for your longstanding bipartisan tradition of
    requiring blue slips from Senators supporting district court
    nominees from other States. I can give you specific examples
    where, during the first Trump administration, Democratic
    Senators did not approve any blue slips to fill any judicial
    vacancies in their State. They waited until there was a
    Democratic President.
        I can give you another example, a very obvious example--and
    I won't name names--of one State now represented on this
    Judiciary Committee where the Republican Senators filled no
    judicial vacancies during the Biden administration and waited
    until they had an opportunity for a Republican President. It
    has been done by both parties. But we have stood by the blue
    slip, and I hope we will continue to.
        I yield.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. I want to now introduce
    Senator McConnell, Senator Hyde-Smith, Senator Tuberville,
    Senator Britt, and remarks from Senator Coons.
        Senator McConnell, please proceed.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MITCH McCONNELL,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

        Senator McConnell. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of
    the Committee. It is my honor to be here today to introduce my
    friend Jennifer Mascott.
        President Trump made an excellent selection in Jenn as his
    nominee for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I have had the
    pleasure of getting to know Jenn over the years through her
    work as a professor. I can tell you firsthand that Jenn has
    honed a brilliant legal mind, evidenced in both her academic
    credentials and distinguished public service. This nomination
    provides the Senate with a prime opportunity to elevate a well-
    studied constitutional scholar who understands the role of a
    judge.
        Before beginning her law career, Jenn graduated from the
    University of Maryland with degrees in math and Government. I
    am proud to say that, early in her career, she worked in a
    Kentucky congressional delegation as a press assistant. I am
    fond of her Kentucky connection and grateful for her service to
    the Commonwealth.
        As you may expect, this was just one of many roles where
    Jenn excelled in serving others. After her work in Congress,
    Jenn graduated from the George Washington University Law School
    with the highest GPA in her class. She even made history by
    breaking the record for the law school's highest graduating GPA
    ever. It is no surprise that she is regarded as wicked smart
    among her peers in the legal community.
        Jenn built her skills during impressive clerkships with the
    then-D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh and
    then-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Her legal
    foundation in text and tradition makes Jenn exceptionally well-
    suited for a spot on the Federal bench.
        Perhaps the most impactful aspect of Jenn's resume is her
    devotion to teaching the next generation of attorneys. In her
    tenure at the Scalia Law School at George Mason University and
    Catholic University's Columbus School of Law, Jenn earned a
    reputation for accessibility to students and robust support for
    their legal journeys.
        The faculty at her alma mater, GW, represented a variety of
    political backgrounds, praise her demeanor, her outlook on
    jurisprudence, and her stellar qualifications. Jenn's fair-
    mindedness and broad knowledge of the law make her the perfect
    candidate for Federal judge.
        Needless to say, helping highly qualified legal
    professionals reach the Federal bench has been one of the
    favorite parts of my job. I have gotten to do it an awful lot.
    So I can speak with a bit of experience when I say that Jenn is
    exceptionally qualified for the role we are discussing. She
    will interpret the law as it is written and ensure to the best
    of her ability that our Founders' principle of the rule of law
    will prevail.
        I would like to close by recognizing Jenn's four children,
    Avery, Everett, Eli, and Augustine, who I am sure are thrilled
    that their mom sits before this Committee today in
    consideration to be a Federal judge. Jenn, you and your family
    were incredibly strong through the loss of your husband, Jeff,
    in 2023. Your resilience is an inspiration to all of us. There
    is no doubt he is looking down today with so much pride in his
    family.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me today to give
    my insight on this stellar nominee. I am confident that
    Jennifer Mascott will serve our country well. I look forward to
    her consideration and her confirmation.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator McConnell.
        Now, Senator Wicker.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much, Chairman Grassley and
    Ranking Member Durbin and my distinguished colleagues on this
    Committee.
        Senator Hyde-Smith and I have a great honor today of
    presenting two very outstanding members of our State Supreme
    Court for the two vacancies of district judge in the Northern
    District of Mississippi. Senator Hyde-Smith has served in the
    State Senate with both of these distinguished jurists before
    they went on to the bench. And, well, let me say she has known
    both of them as judges and one of them as a colleague since
    when she was herself a member of the State Senate.
        And I will take the lead in introducing Justice Bobby
    Chamberlin, and Senator Hyde-Smith will take the lead in
    introducing Justice Jimmy Maxwell, but please know that we
    support them both.
        From years of observing the personal character of Justice
    Bobby Chamberlin, I can assure this Committee that he is a
    rock-solid choice and ready to assume this office. I have known
    him for many years and had an opportunity to observe him in
    many, many capacities. He is a graduate of the University of
    Mississippi School of Law, and immediately upon graduation, he
    went back and began work in the private sector. He was actually
    a partner in one of the outstanding firms in DeSoto County,
    Mississippi.
        He has excelled in the practice of private law. He has been
    a municipal court judge. He has been a city prosecutor for the
    city of Horn Lake, Mississippi. He has been appointed a special
    master in Chancery Court. He has worked for years as attorney
    for the DeSoto County Board of Supervisors, the governing
    legislative board of county Government in our State of
    Mississippi. And as I said earlier, he served as State Senator
    for DeSoto County for some 5 years, where indeed he did serve
    with Senator Hyde-Smith as a colleague.
        Then in 2005, Governor Haley Barbour thought enough of
    Senator Chamberlin to appoint him as a circuit judge in
    Mississippi's 17th Circuit, a position which he held for over a
    decade until, in 2016, he decided to run for the position of
    Supreme Court Justice. Now, in some States that is appointive,
    but in our State it is elective, and it is, I think, a
    testimony to Justice Chamberlin's fairness and even-handedness
    that in the runoff election for that position of Supreme Court
    Justice in his home county of DeSoto County, the fastest
    growing county in the State of Mississippi, he received 93
    percent of the vote. So I think that underscores what I have
    known for a long time, that the people who know him best have
    confidence in him, and they have seen him in all of these
    capacities over the years, and they thought enough of him to
    give him 93 percent of the hometown votes.
        He is a family man. He and his wife Kim, who is herself a
    dedicated public servant, they raised their son William there
    in DeSoto County in Hernando and the United Methodist Church of
    Hernando. Bobby is clearly ready for this role.
        Again, I endorse both of these candidates, Jimmy and Bobby.
    I know them by name. I know them personally. They will both
    make very fine judges for the Northern District of Mississippi,
    and I urge my colleagues to approve their nominations.
        Thank you, and I yield back, sir.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Wicker, thank you.
        Senator Hyde-Smith.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. CINDY HYDE-SMITH,
              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and
    Ranking Member Durbin and the Members of this Committee, for
    the opportunity to be here today to speak on behalf of my two
    very special friends. I am especially grateful to President
    Trump for nominating James Maxwell and Robert Chamberlin to
    serve as United States district judges for the Northern
    District of Mississippi. Both are highly qualified individuals
    and bring honor, experience, and integrity to the Federal
    bench. I congratulate them on this recognition and offer my
    full support for their confirmations.
        As Senator Wicker mentioned, I got to know Bobby Chamberlin
    as we went into the State Senate together at the same time and
    his wonderful wife Kim and their son Will and realized how
    outstanding they all are.
        Today, it is my privilege to introduce and speak in support
    of James Maxwell. He has long served the people of Mississippi
    with a distinction as a man of outstanding character and deep
    legal experience. Justice Maxwell resides in Oxford,
    Mississippi, home to the University of Mississippi, where he
    earned both his undergraduate and law degrees. His legal career
    reflects a steady rise through increasingly demanding roles,
    always defined by professionalism and dedication to the rule of
    law.
        From 2002 to 2009, Justice Maxwell served as an assistant
    United States attorney in the Criminal Division, prosecuting a
    wide array of serious cases, from public corruption and white-
    collar crimes to major drug trafficking, gang activity, and
    violent offenses. His work helped make communities safer and
    underscored his commitment to justice.
        In 2009, James was appointed to the Mississippi Court of
    Appeals, where he served until 2015. There, he worked on a wide
    variety of civil and criminal appeals and built a strong
    reputation for being fair, thorough, and a sharp legal mind.
        Since 2016, Justice Maxwell has served on the Mississippi
    Supreme Court. In that esteemed role, he has reviewed thousands
    of cases and authored more than 500 majority opinions. This
    extraordinary body of work demonstrates both his intellect and
    his dedication to careful, principled jurisprudence.
    Altogether, his 16 years on the State's two highest courts,
    combined with his earlier Federal prosecutorial experience,
    make him exceptionally well-prepared to serve on the Federal
    bench.
        Beyond the courtroom, Justice Maxwell has been an engaged
    leader in the Mississippi Bar Association and the State
    Prosecutors Association. And while his professional
    accomplishments are significant, those who know him best also
    speak of his humility, integrity, and faithfulness to both law
    and his community.
        I would also like to recognize his wife, Mindy, who is here
    today in support. Her presence is a reminder of the family and
    community that stands behind Jimmy and the values that shape
    his service.
        In closing, I have full confidence in Justice Maxwell's
    qualifications, character, and commitment to justice. He will
    be a tremendous asset to the Northern District of Mississippi
    and to our Federal judiciary more broadly. I look forward to
    working with this Committee and with Leader Thune to ensure a
    swift and successful confirmation of both James Maxwell and
    Robert Chamberlin to serve in the Northern District of
    Mississippi.
        Thank you so much.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Hyde-Smith.
        Now, Senator Tuberville.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TOMMY TUBERVILLE,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

        Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and the
    Committee, for holding this hearing. I want to begin by
    thanking President Trump for selecting these exceptional
    candidates. I really enjoyed working with Senator Britt on this
    important task.
        We need our justice system to focus on upholding the
    Constitution, not pushing an agenda, and I am confident that
    these three gentlemen will respect the rule of law and will be
    impartial in all their interactions on the bench. It is my
    honor and privilege to introduce these three individuals who
    have been nominated to serve as Federal district court judges
    in the great State of Alabama.
        Number one, Edmund LaCour for the Northern District. Edmund
    is currently the solicitor general of the State of Alabama.
    Before assuming this role, he served as deputy solicitor
    general. Prior to that, he worked in private practice here in
    Washington, DC. Edmund was previously nominated to be the U.S.
    district judge by President Trump at the end of his first
    administration, but this nomination was later withdrawn by
    President Biden. A native of Dothan, Alabama, Edmund attended
    Birmingham Southern College for an undergraduate degree and
    Yale Law School for his J.D.
        Our second nominee, Hal Mooty for the Northern District of
    Alabama, Hal Mooty is a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings
    LLP in Huntsville, Alabama, specializing in business and
    commercial litigation. He has served as the president of the
    Alabama Defense Lawyers Association's Young Lawyers Section and
    previously served on the Young Lawyers Executive Committee to
    the Alabama State Bar. Hal is originally from Montgomery,
    Alabama, and he went to both undergraduate and law school at
    the University of Alabama.
        Our third nominee is Mr. Bill Lewis for the Middle
    District. Bill Lewis is a justice on the Alabama Supreme Court.
    Prior to being nominated to this role, he served as a judge on
    the Alabama Court of Appeals, and earlier, he was the presiding
    circuit judge on the 19th Judicial Circuit. Before his judicial
    service began, Bill was in private practice in Wetumpka,
    Alabama. He is a lifelong Alabama resident. Having grown up in
    Wetumpka, Bill attended the University of the South for his
    undergraduate degree and Cumberland Law School in Birmingham
    for his J.D.
        Welcome to all these nominees and their families, which is
    quite a few, by the way. So thank you to the Committee for this
    opportunity, and I urge swift confirmation of these outstanding
    nominees.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Tuberville.
        Now, Senator Britt.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KATIE BOYD BRITT,
                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

        Senator Britt. Thank you, Chair Grassley, Ranking Member
    Durbin, for the opportunity to introduce these outstanding
    nominees.
        Today is a great day, not only for the State of Alabama,
    but for our Nation, to get to see these fine men in front of
    us. I want to thank President Trump for his exceptional
    leadership in nominating each of these individuals, and I want
    to thank Senator Tuberville for us being able to work hand in
    glove to make this happen and move these to the front of this
    Committee.
        I want to welcome Justice Bill Lewis, Hal Mooty, and Edmund
    LaCour and their friends and family who are here and with them
    today. We are so proud to have each and every one of you with
    us.
        Before us are three nominees for Federal judgeships in our
    State who have superb qualifications and a devotion to the
    Constitution and the rule of law. I am thrilled that President
    Trump has nominated them to serve in the judiciary and am
    looking forward to their swift confirmation.
        While each of them will have an opportunity to introduce
    themselves, I would like to take a minute to highlight some of
    their accolades. Justice Bill Lewis has served as a judge in
    Alabama's judicial system since 2016 and is currently an
    associate justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Prior to that,
    he served as a circuit judge for Alabama's 19th Judicial
    Circuit and a judge on Alabama's Court of Civil Appeals. He has
    worked as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney and was in
    private practice for approximately 10 years before becoming a
    judge. He has also served our State in other ways, including as
    a member of the University of South Alabama Board of Trustees.
        As a graduate of the University of South Alabama and the
    University of the South and Cumberland School of Law, he has
    received numerous awards and honors and has served with
    distinction throughout his career. Born and raised in the River
    Region, this is the place that my children call home, and I
    have an opportunity to reside. I can say that Justice Lewis has
    unquestionable character. He is a pillar of our community. His
    story and his grit inspire all who know him, and I cannot wait
    for him to be sitting on the bench.
        Second is Hal Mooty. Hal is a partner at one of our State's
    preeminent law firms, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings. He has an
    outstanding record of representing his clients in commercial
    litigation across our great Nation, and he has been named as
    one of the best lawyers in America for commercial litigation.
    Hal has been an active member of the Huntsville community,
    having served as a board member and board president of the
    Crisis Center of North Alabama, the Development Council of
    Huntsville Hospital, the Committee for the Future for the
    Children's Hospital of Alabama, and as part of the Madison
    County Volunteer Lawyers Program. Every person, every part of
    our State is seen by Hal, and he has a relentless pursuit to
    make sure that they are fought for.
        As a graduate of the University of Alabama for both
    undergrad and law school, Hal has, throughout his career,
    consistently demonstrated the qualities that are essential to
    serving as a member of the Federal judiciary. Having known Hal
    for 22 years myself, I can tell you there is no one else who
    has the focus. It is unmatched. He has a relentless pursuit of
    excellence, and he has a deep sense of justice.
        Finally, Edmund LaCour currently serves as the Solicitor
    General of the State of Alabama, a position he has held since
    2019. A graduate of Birmingham Southern College and Yale Law
    School, his legal credentials are unquestioned. As solicitor
    general of Alabama, he has represented the State in a whole
    host of litigation and Federal court and has been admitted to
    practice before every circuit court of appeals in the United
    States, as well as the Supreme Court. As a lawyer, he has filed
    more than 100 briefs before the Supreme Court and has argued
    three cases before the Court. Prior to becoming solicitor
    general, he was in private practice at firms including Kirkland
    & Ellis and Baker Botts and he has also served as a clerk to
    Judge Bill Pryor on the 11th Circuit. As a fellow native of the
    Wiregrass, obviously, the entire region is proud to see you
    serve.
        I believe that all three of these nominees will apply our
    laws fairly, uphold the Constitution, and serve with
    distinction on the Federal courts. I am proud to support their
    nominations and thank them for their willingness to serve and
    look forward to their swift confirmations.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator. We aren't going to
    ask you any questions, so if you want to go, please leave.
        [Laughter.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons, you wanted 3 minutes for
    some remarks.
        Senator Coons. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. And maybe I will take a couple minutes
    after you get done for rebuttal to you.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER A. COONS,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Coons. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    allowing me to speak to the nomination of Ms. Mascott to serve
    in the Third Circuit.
        First, if I might, Professor Mascott, congratulations to
    you and to your family. I mentioned in our meeting yesterday, I
    have had several personal friends reach out to me to sing your
    praises as a wife, a mother, a neighbor, a friend, a colleague.
    And I too want to offer my condolences on the passing of your
    husband, Jeff. I personally know how devastating pancreatic
    cancer is.
        I want to thank you for your service at the Department of
    Justice and the White House Counsel's Office and your
    willingness to continue to serve. My question, as I posed
    yesterday, though, is why that service should be in the
    Delaware seat on the Third Circuit. You were nominated by
    President Trump to serve as general counsel of the Department
    of Education, a position that fits well with your
    administrative law and constitutional regulatory background.
    That nomination was just withdrawn yesterday. Why not serve
    there? You could serve on the D.C. Circuit, which handles lots
    of administrative and constitutional cases, many more than the
    Third Circuit. Why not serve there?
        You have been nominated instead to sit on the Third Circuit
    in the Delaware seat, long held by Judge Kent Jordan. You are
    not a member of the Delaware Bar. You have never appeared or
    practiced in the Delaware State or Federal courts. As best as I
    could tell, your only connection to Delaware is a vacation home
    in Bethany Beach.
        That is in sharp contrast to the jurist you have been
    nominated to replace. Judge Jordan clerked in Delaware,
    practiced in Delaware, worked in our U.S. Attorney's Office,
    served as a district court judge in Delaware. You weren't even
    admitted to practice in the Third Circuit until May, just 4
    days after the White House mentioned you were potentially under
    consideration.
        This is not your fault. This is an issue between me and the
    White House on whether they were ever actually working in good
    faith with Senator Blunt Rochester and me. We interviewed and
    recommended several conservative Delawareans, members of our
    bench and bar. I guess they just were not conservative enough.
    Apparently, there is not a single member of the Delaware bench
    or bar the White House thought was good enough because they
    have instead nominated a law professor from Washington.
        Ms. Mascott, I appreciated our conversation yesterday when
    we met for the first time, but your lack of practical legal
    experience and your extreme views on Presidential power concern
    me gravely. You are an academic, an advocate, but you have not
    practiced torts or bankruptcy, criminal law, corporate law, and
    yet you will grade the work of Delaware's district and
    bankruptcy judges.
        Last, in a moment when there is profound tension in our
    political system and our legal system about the boundaries
    between Articles I, II, and III of our Constitution, just a few
    months ago, you said the Supreme Court's decision in Humphrey's
    Executor should be struck down. Humphrey's Executor has been
    settled law for 90 years and is in many ways the foundation of
    the boundaries between executive power and the work of this
    body. Now you will testify, I expect, that I can count on you
    to apply fairly what is left of that landmark precedent.
        I will close. I hope you come to understand the unique and
    important the welcoming and supportive role of the legal
    community in my State, a place you do not know but have now
    raised your hand to serve. I welcome the chance to question you
    today, but I regret to inform you I will oppose your
    nomination.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. I am going to put most of my statement
    in the record, but I just want to read some names that are
    precedent for what you talked about, Professor Mascott. We got
    Katzmann, New York, 2nd Circuit, Neil Gorsuch, obviously, when
    he was on the 10th Circuit; Judge Bybee, got both of Nevada--
    got both Senator Reid and Senator Ensign to return the blue
    slip for them. Allison Rushing is another example. Judge Julie
    Rikelman, Boston seat on the First Circuit, she never practiced
    in Massachusetts, but Senators Warren and Markey backed her
    anyway and the Senate confirmed her. So those are some examples
    that I am going to put in the record.
        But there is a famous memorable speech by Senator Tillis
    begging the Committee Democrats to respect his objection to
    circuit nominee Ryan Park and warn that the shoe would be on
    the other foot, and this is what Senator Tillis said: ``I am
    wondering what Thom Tillis needs to show up in the Trump
    administration, the Thom Tillis that was here the last time who
    tried to work with you all on some judges, or the Thom Tillis
    that reflectively votes no. I will tell you the same thing next
    year when the roles are reversed. You are either going to make
    my job harder by doing the right thing and respecting your
    colleagues today, or you are going to make my job easier
    because I am going to go right down the line with the
    administration.''
        So that's the end of that now. We are ready for the new
    nominee. Professor, would you please come to the table but
    don't sit down right away because I would like to swear.
        [Witness is sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now, you can make your
    opening statement and introduce anybody that you want to
    introduce who is here or not here in support of you.

     STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. MASCOTT, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
               STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

        Professor Mascott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Please push the red button.
        Professor Mascott. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you to the Committee for having me here today. I want to begin
    by thanking President Trump for the honor of his nomination to
    a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and
    for the opportunity of a lifetime to serve as a lawyer again
    now in the second Trump administration.
        I also want to thank the many mentors like the judges for
    whom I clerked, Justice Thomas and Kavanaugh, from whom I have
    learned so much. Thank you to Senator McConnell for his warm
    introduction. I'm very grateful earlier in my career for the
    chance to serve as a staffer on the Senate and House sides of
    the Hill and during part of that time period for a member of
    the Kentucky delegation where Terry Carmack of Senator
    McConnell's office was my chief of staff.
        Before testifying, I also want to thank members of my
    family and longtime friends and colleagues who are here and
    introduce my family. But before that, I want to reflect on
    several key figures who are not here. My parents, who had
    children quite a bit later in life, they were wonderful people
    and made me so much of who I am today. My dad was a minister
    and helped raise funds for a number of international nonprofit
    religious organizations, both in Africa and India, and through
    those efforts introduced us to people from around the world. My
    mom had been a high school English teacher, and before they had
    children of their own, they helped raise foster children.
        They taught the value of hard work, excellence,
    determination, and a love of learning, and they esteemed public
    service, helping to develop a deep appreciation and respect for
    the freedoms we have in this amazing country we're all blessed
    to call home.
        And then my husband, Jeff, he passed away from pancreatic
    cancer about 2 years ago. He was clever, entrepreneurial, and
    devoted to his family and his God. He became a young leader in
    our church. He was a great man and father, and his piercing
    affection taught me and our children a bit of what it means to
    be adored and deeply known.
        We were young. After I finished high school at 16, we met
    in college and were married soon after we finished school. We
    both at that time worked for this body, Congress, on the House
    side and sold one of our cars to pay the security deposit for
    our first apartment on the Hill. And then with ingenuity and
    determination, he brought us to where we are today.
        And here with me are our four children, courageous, kind,
    compassionate, strong, and so much fun.
        And my parents-in-law, Tom and Jenny, career-long educators
    in the Montgomery and Howard County public school systems who
    essentially have become father and mother to me. My brother-in-
    law, Brent Mascott, an elementary school principal, plans to be
    here shortly after he finishes meeting with the school
    superintendent of the system to start the school year; and my
    sister-in-law, Amy Mascott, a Blue Hen, graduate of the
    University of Delaware, also a public school educator, she
    generously took the time to attend today, along with a number
    of other friends and colleagues.
        It would be an unbelievable honor to enter judicial service
    and a gift of the kind of opportunity that in many ways can
    happen only in the kind of system we have here in America that
    provides immense opportunity for education and service,
    betterment, and selection of one's own profession.
        Mine was not a family of lawyers. One grandmother, one of
    eight, was the first daughter in her family to finish high
    school, as I understand it. One grandfather stayed in school
    just through the eighth grade. The other was orphaned in his
    teens, joined the Army soon thereafter, and eventually becoming
    a short-lived professional boxer and then Baptist minister. A
    number of cousins have served in local law enforcement. And I
    would value the opportunity to continue that tradition of
    public and community service and preservation of the rule of
    law if this body were to vote to confirm me.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        Chairman Grassley. I thought you were going to introduce
    people that were here.
        Professor Mascott. Well, my in-laws, Tom and Jenny Mascott,
    and my children. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. You bet. Thank you.
        Professor, you had a rare opportunity to clerk for not one,
    but two Justices on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas and then
    Judge Gorsuch on the 10th Circuit. What did you take away from
    these clerkships about the proper role of a judge?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Chairman, thank you. I am deeply
    honored to have been able to serve both alongside and for and
    later teach with Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh when he
    was on the D.C. Circuit, and they both brought a lot of
    humility to their service on the Federal bench and
    understanding of the limited role in our system of a Federal
    judge to decide concrete cases and controversies, fairly apply
    the principles of law, look deeply at the public understanding
    of text in the Constitution and statutes, and apply the law
    with justice and fairness and humility without favor to any
    particular kind of party.
        Chairman Grassley. You directed litigation clinics at two
    law schools where students worked on appellate briefs before
    the Supreme Court and Federal courts of appeal. What have you
    learned from mentoring students in these real-world cases? And
    how will that experience shape your approach to complex
    appellate cases when you are on the bench?
        Professor Mascott. Well, thank you, Senator. It was an
    immense honor to be able to teach students, first as an adjunct
    at my alma mater, GW, and later at Scalia Law School and
    Catholic. And I was so happy to come in this morning and see
    actually several former students working here, staffers present
    right now at the hearing working for you all and continuing
    just a great tradition of service.
        With the work particularly in founding the Student
    Litigation Clinics, focused on issues of separation of powers,
    those were great opportunities to help students get practical
    experience writing briefs, looking at important constitutional
    issues. The clinics had the offer--the honor, as I believe you
    mentioned earlier in your opening remarks, at times of even
    filing amicus briefs in the Supreme Court on behalf of Members
    of this Committee, sometimes even for as many as 100 Members of
    Congress in important cases dealing with student loan payments,
    the meaning and significance of the now reversed Chevron
    doctrine, and other important issues cutting across all three
    branches of Government, the important role of freedom and
    limited Government in this country. That is a tradition I know
    this Committee is working every day to try to uphold as well.
        Chairman Grassley. You have been before Congress many times
    on topics ranging from executive privilege to the role of
    Federal courts and administrative law. How has that experience
    shaped your perspective on the judiciary's role in our system
    of separated powers?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, I was really grateful for
    the opportunity here in this Committee and also on the House
    Judiciary Committee, as you mentioned, to be able to testify a
    number of times on the role of Federal courts in the
    confirmation hearings for two Supreme Court Justices on issues
    of regulatory law and executive privilege. And with the
    Committee's often exacting questions, it was really an
    opportunity to see how this body unpacks legal questions and is
    dedicated to its role in our system which, of course, in
    Article I is really preeminent with policymaking and
    establishing rule of law, preserving freedom.
        And I was really grateful the Committee brought me in to
    unpack issues not only about how the three branches at the
    Federal level interact but also the way in which the Federal
    Government's designedly limited role preserves freedom of the
    States to be able to govern people and preserves freedom of
    families and religious institutions and folks in local
    communities.
        Chairman Grassley. I referred in my opening statement about
    how your scholarship has been cited by the Supreme Court in
    more than one opinion, and you have even been referenced by
    name during oral arguments. How has your experience as a
    professor and scholar influenced the way you would approach
    precedent as a judge?
        Professor Mascott. Well, the opportunity as a professor to
    study and teach and write on the Constitution would be
    foundational because it has really increased even more my love
    and respect for the document for our freedoms and provided a
    lot of opportunity to dig deep in the history of understanding
    the meaning of the text and phrases in the Constitution and how
    the Founders, in drafting and then ratifying among the State
    ratification conventions that text, were focused on preserving
    liberty and freedom and wrestling with accountability for
    governmental actors and focusing on the preeminence of
    elections in selecting policymakers.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Professor, welcome back.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. I am glad you are here today, and
    congratulations on your nomination.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you.
        Senator Durbin. You clerked for Justice Thomas on the
    Supreme Court. You also testified before this Committee against
    the Supreme Court ethics reform legislation at a hearing in
    June 2023. That hearing followed investigative reporting that
    revealed Justice Clarence Thomas received and failed to
    disclose gifts worth millions of dollars with some estimates
    placing the total value at over $4 million. This was confirmed
    by exhaustive Committee investigation and subpoenas that my
    staff and I conducted when I was Chairman of the Committee.
        So I have several questions I would like to ask you first.
    If you are confirmed to serve on the Third Circuit, will you
    commit to abiding by all the rules and regulations governing
    judicial ethics, including Federal statutes and the code of
    conduct for U.S. judges?
        Professor Mascott. Oh, Senator, absolutely. I would be
    committed to all ethics requirements, yes, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. I am going to assume unless you say
    otherwise that you had no personal knowledge of Clarence
    Thomas' receiving any gifts.
        Professor Mascott. Senator, that is correct. I was his law
    clerk, yes.
        Senator Durbin. All right. You came before this Committee
    to testify on an effort we are making to try to establish a
    code of ethics for the highest court in the land. We know that
    there is a code of ethics that applies to Federal judges other
    than the Supreme Court and how it is enforced, and we are
    trying to write something that would apply to Supreme Court
    Justice Thomas or any others who have millions of dollars'
    worth of undisclosed gifts. Since you came and testified
    against our legislation, I will ask you a very general
    question. How do you believe the Supreme Court should be
    governed when it comes to ethics?
        Professor Mascott. Well, so, Senator, I was grateful to
    have the opportunity to come here back at that time during a
    challenging time. Just on your earlier questions, I just need
    to say again how honored I was to serve as a law clerk for
    Justice Thomas and have the deepest respect for him and his
    character and his integrity.
        I appreciate your question about Senator Whitehouse's
    proposed legislation at that time. In my recollection of my
    testimony on that act--and I think I may have been the only
    Republican witness in the Committee testifying that day; I
    could be wrong about that--but that we were talking about the
    various constitutional or not aspects of the bill and that my
    testimony focused not really on policy questions of ethics but
    some of the particulars in the act like the lower court panels
    sitting to evaluate recusal decisions of Supreme Court Justices
    and that I was pointing out that in our system that has the
    Supreme Court vested with judicial authority at the top of
    Article III, that there were real constitutional questions
    about allowing inferior judges, as referred to in the
    Constitution, inferior courts, to sit in judgment really of any
    decisions of the Supreme Court and that there were also a lot
    of open questions in our system about the way that ethics
    decisions should be adjudicated, but I do not recall commenting
    on the policy of the Justices' decision to file recusals.
        And again, my understanding is that even though it is not
    covered statutorily in quite the same way as lower courts at
    the Supreme Court by its own statements and commitments, it
    upholds the statutory recusal requirements in exactly the same
    way and with the same rigor that lower courts do.
        Senator Durbin. So when it comes to constitutional
    compliance, do you believe that receiving millions of dollars
    in gifts and not disclosing them is in the best interest of our
    Constitution?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, I--again--and I don't
    mean to comment first on the premise of the question. My
    recollection is that all reporting requirements there were
    dealt with and addressed. And the constitutional question,
    again, I think the provisions in the bill as I recall that were
    the focus of my testimony are about how these types of
    requirements are to be enforced. And the Supreme Court, as I
    recall, I think, a statement by Chief Justice Roberts at the
    time, again, emphasized how devoted the Supreme Court and every
    Justice is to complying with ethics requirements.
        The main constitutional and legal questions before the
    Committee that day were which actors in our system are
    responsible for making sure those agreements are followed and
    questions about how two co-equal branches are to interact and
    how lower court judges interact with superior court judges.
        Senator Durbin. I think the reputation of the Supreme Court
    is important enough for us to be willing to consider new ideas
    on enforcement. Current rules do not work. There are too many
    gifts that go undisclosed to the Justices serving in the
    highest court of land. The Supreme Court of the United States,
    the highest court in the land, should not have the lowest
    standard of ethics.
        And when you testified, and as you mentioned, the only one
    who testified against this bill for reform, it left a lasting
    impression with me. I respect very much your education and what
    you have achieved in your life. It is remarkable. But this is
    one question that still remains unanswered as far as I am
    concerned.
        Thank you very much.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Could we ask
    your team to either turn up the air conditioning or build a
    fire, one or the other?
        Chairman Grassley. I am sure somebody heard the request.
        Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Mascott, it is a pleasure to have you here. We are
    grateful to have you here.
        On this last point, I do think it is important to remember
    that separation of powers matters. We are talking here about a
    coordinate branch of Government. The highest court in the land,
    the Supreme Court of the United States, unlike the lower courts
    is not a creation of the Congress. We determine its size, but
    we can't relegate that into nonexistence, as we theoretically
    could do with any of the inferior courts.
        And so when we are talking about the apex of a coordinate
    branch of Government, the question is not whether to have those
    standards in place. The question is who sets them and who does
    not, and that is not a question of whether you want rules to
    apply. They do have rules, but they are rules that they
    themselves have adopted consistent with existing Federal law.
        Ms. Mascott, you have been nominated to the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the Third Circuit, a court that is near and dear to
    my heart as I served as a law clerk back during the William
    Howard Taft administration----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lee [continuing]. And enjoyed that immensely. As
    you approach this role, tell me how you would go about
    interpreting text, statutory or constitutional, as that is
    arguably the single most distinguishing feature of the judicial
    role, particularly the judicial appellate role.
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Senator. So in looking at statutory
    and constitutional text, I would be looking for the plain
    meaning or the public understanding of the text that is before
    the Court in that particular case. And, as this body knows,
    that often--it always includes starting with the text itself,
    not just the text of the word in isolation but understanding
    whether the phrase is a legal term of art, looking to the
    surrounding provisions, looking to how the word is used in
    other legislation enacted at the same time.
        But another important point is the timing of the meaning of
    the phrase would, of course, be relevant based on the time the
    document became law, so for a statute, at the time it was
    enacted; and for the Constitution, at the time it was ratified
    by State conventions.
        And if there is still, you know, question to get
    background, you know, other times people will use the evidence
    of outside sources to understand what the common understanding
    or plain understanding of a text would have been. So in my work
    the Stanford Law Review article is probably the most emblematic
    of my deep look at a constitutional phrase.
        I also looked at dictionaries at the time of ratification
    and used actually a technique that was coming into use at the
    time called corpus linguistics put forward by Brigham Young
    University with its data bases to look at thousands of uses in
    ordinary or legal language about how a word is used to further
    understand its meaning. And the importance is to know exactly
    what definition of meaning was given legal impact by the folks
    voting on the text at the time, which is why one wants to
    understand not only how the decisionmakers themselves but the
    public more broadly understood it because it is not about the
    individual mind of the legislature but the objective meaning of
    the text and the document.
        Senator Lee. Fantastic. I can't wait to tell my brother
    about your plug for corpus linguistics, especially out of BYU.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Lee. Yes, and I think that is important when we
    talk about that approach looking at the original public meaning
    at the time of passage if a statute or at the time of
    ratification if it is the Constitution or a subsequent
    amendment thereto is important and that does matter. In fact,
    it is exactly what matters.
        Now, insofar as the meaning of the text is plain and clear
    on its face, it is going to be an easier task. Where there are
    ambiguities, that is where lawyers earn their fee, and that is
    where judges do their best and hardest work. Of those things
    where it is not plain, what are some of the things that you
    would look to to resolve ambiguities? And in particular, to
    what extent is it helpful to gain insight into statements
    perhaps reflecting a particular subjective viewpoint of a
    particular lawmaker on something? And by that, I mean floor
    statements, statements made in debate, and so forth.
        Professor Mascott. So Senator, if there was a text where
    the meaning wasn't originally clear--and as an attorney in the
    Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, this was
    the kind of question we often received. So I--in my experience,
    it should take a lot to reach the conclusion that text is truly
    ambiguous. A lot of hard work should be done looking at that
    phrase and surrounding phrases in advance and, as I mentioned
    before, dictionaries and other sources.
        You mentioned the particular statements of lawmakers, so
    what we sometimes call legislative history. So if it is a
    collection of statements looked at as one piece of evidence,
    perhaps okay, but there would never be an instance where the
    intent of one individual person would have legal impact on the
    meaning of a text because the Constitution in Article I,
    Section 7 made this whole body through bicameralism and
    presentment and the President responsible for enacting text
    institutionally and not just one by one.
        Senator Lee. So in other words, even if you could take one
    of those statements, and even insofar as one of those
    statements evidenced a subjective intent on the part of that
    lawmaker, that isn't relevant, regardless of whether they
    subjectively believed that? Unless that was somehow consistent
    with the original public understanding of it, that really has
    no bearing?
        Professor Mascott. Correct, Senator, yes.
        Senator Lee. Yep, thank you. I see my time has expired.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you.
        Professor, are you a member of the Delaware Bar?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I am a member of the Virginia
    and Maryland Bars as a long-time public servant here in this
    area.
        Senator Coons. Have you ever practiced law in Delaware?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I am admitted to the Third
    Circuit. I practice law, as I mentioned, as a public servant
    mostly here in Government.
        Senator Coons. Have you ever practiced law in Delaware?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I have not. I practice law in
    this area.
        Senator Coons. Have you made any argument in the Federal or
    State courts of Delaware?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, again, as a public servant----
        Senator Coons. You can treat these as yes and no questions,
    please, Professor. Have you ever filed a brief in a Delaware
    court?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I filed a brief in the Third
    Circuit. As your questions point out, as the President's
    nominee to the Third Circuit, I have been nominated to a seat
    that by custom now is within Delaware and would look forward,
    if this body were to confirm me, in joining the legal community
    specifically in Delaware. I would plan to have chambers in
    Wilmington. But right now, my practice has been as an academic
    and here in Washington, DC, as a public servant.
        Senator Coons. So your record of scholarship and public
    commentary advocacy is quite lengthy, but I am concerned that
    your actual practice is quite short. How many depositions have
    you taken or defended?
        Professor Mascott. So, Senator, as principally an appellate
    lawyer and----
        Senator Coons. I think the answer is none. How many motions
    in limine have you argued?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, my practice has been mostly at
    the appellate level, so I have filed dozens of appellate
    briefs. I have not argued motions in limine. I did argue to
    verdict, however, as the record shows, a district court case
    defending Title IX for the Department of Education, and so have
    argued in both district and appellate courts on behalf of the
    Federal Government.
        Senator Coons. My point is simply that the Third Circuit's
    docket is substantially made up of criminal cases, bankruptcy
    cases, patent cases, very little in terms of constitutional
    administrative law, which is your specialty. And you have been
    nominated to essentially rule on appeals from the district
    courts, in particular the district courts of Delaware. And this
    long, long tradition of States getting to choose a member of
    their bench and their bar to go to a circuit is so that the
    values and the tradition, the legal concerns of that State are
    most respected.
        Let me move to your substantive work because my core
    concern is that our Framers drafted a Constitution in order to
    constrain powers, the separation of powers, which you have
    taught. They put Congress as the Article I branch, not the
    President because they were principally concerned about
    constraining an overreaching executive.
        In a brief that you filed challenging President Biden's
    efforts to cancel student debt, you wrote, ``The power of the
    purse is one of Congress' most potent checks on the executive
    branch.'' I asked you yesterday if you had ever advised the
    White House on impoundment issues, whether President Trump
    could refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated, and you
    said that you had. Did you advise the White House President
    Trump can refuse to spend money legally appropriated by this
    body?
        Professor Mascott. So, Senator, I appreciate your question
    reference to Article I and appropriation. I know we talked
    about that a bit yesterday. And also, you know, having clerked
    for Judge Kavanaugh, he, as a former executive branch lawyer,
    also pointed out the President's role in having to sign off or
    veto legislation.
        The particular question you talked about, I believe--I
    recall in our discussion that I had mentioned that I had not
    been working on that issue recently, that I was asked a
    discreet question actually prior to the start of the
    administration on the constitutional question related to that
    topic. But beyond that, really sitting here today as a judicial
    nominee with some of these issues playing out in the courts as
    we speak, I cannot further comment on the question.
        Senator Coons. You publicly stated in March of this year
    that the Supreme Court's 90-year-old Humphrey's Executor case
    was wrongly decided. Do you stand by that statement?
        Professor Mascott. So, Senator, as an academic--and I have
    taught in other forums--I strongly stand by my past work.
    Sitting here as a judicial nominee, what I also mentioned
    yesterday a number of times was my commitment as a lower court
    judge to fully and completely applying Supreme Court precedence
    and also the case that you mentioned, Humphrey's Executor, in
    the Supreme Court's own writings that has referred to it in the
    past decade, 10 or 15 years, as a narrow exception to the
    broader principle that the President, vested with the executive
    power, needs to supervise the executive branch, and I would
    apply all those principles fully.
        Senator Coons. You were just in an exchange with Senator
    Lee where you talked about the importance of hewing toward the
    text. I think the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 could
    not have been clearer. In fact, the Humphrey's Executor
    decision was a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, and it
    has been respected, not as a narrow exception, but as frankly
    the foundation of the boundary between the President and dozens
    of critical regulatory agencies. It prevents a President from
    whimsically removing based on partisan political or policy
    differences, something FDR was trying to do to a member of the
    FTC. Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed the holding of
    Humphrey's Executor. Why should we have confidence that we can
    count on you to uphold this 90-year precedent that just months
    ago you have argued was wrongly decided? Will you recuse
    yourself from cases applying that precedent, given your
    advocacy for its reversal?
        Professor Mascott. So, Senator, if I were to have the honor
    of this body to confirm me, I would follow all statutory
    recusal requirements, and I understand one of those
    requirements to be to recuse from particular matters on which I
    would have worked and also cases where I might have a financial
    interest at stake, and of course I would fully comply with all
    statutory recusal requirements.
        Senator Coons. Last question. Do you think Congress can
    constitutionally restrict the removal of any official in the
    executive branch on any basis, whether it is for inefficiency
    or neglect of duty or malfeasance because, as is currently
    being hotly contested, there are critical boundaries between
    Article I and Article II powers, and you have been a relentless
    activist on behalf of expanding the scope of executive power.
    Is there any way Congress can restrict the removal of any
    executive branch official?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, as you point out with it being
    contested, the contours of the constitutional power of Congress
    to constrain the President's supervisory power or to fashion
    characteristics on the contours of the institution of offices
    is currently being contested in courts, and so I am not going
    to be able to speak to the absolute merits on that question.
        We did discuss Congress' role in fashioning and creating
    offices. We discussed the President's power to supervise the
    executive branch. And as I mentioned, if I were to have the
    honor to be confirmed, I would fully and faithfully apply the
    text and structure of the Constitution and decisions by the
    Supreme Court, of which I would be fully bound. Thank you.
        Senator Coons. Ms. Mascott, you come from a great family.
    You have been a fierce, determined, and capable professor. I
    appreciate our conversation yesterday and your answers to my
    questions today. Thank you.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Britt [presiding]. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Professor, congratulations. I believe you
    testified that you think the Constitution should be interpreted
    according to its original public meaning. Is that right?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. What does original public meaning mean?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Senator. So the original part of
    that phrase refers to the fact that when we look at
    interpreting a text, we want to interpret it at the time it
    was----
        Senator Kennedy. Professor, look me in the eye and just
    answer my question. What does original public meaning mean?
        Professor Mascott. It means the meaning of the text as it
    was understood by the public at the time it became law.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. So you think Brown v. Board of
    Education was incorrectly decided?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, I think Brown v. Board of
    Education was correctly decided. Scholars who have looked at
    the original meaning of phrases at that time and their
    reasoning in that case sometimes----
        Senator Kennedy. Well, how many----
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. Question the reasoning of
    the case.
        Senator Kennedy. How many people in the United States of
    America at the time the Constitution was drafted do you think
    supported racial integration of schools? You think that was a
    majority view, do you?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator----
        Senator Kennedy. Do you----
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. At the time----
        Senator Kennedy. But first, Professor, do you think that
    was a majority view? Do you think most Americans at the time
    the Constitution was drafted supported integration of public
    schools, racial integration?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, I don't know as a
    sociological matter what percentage of people thought what at
    that time. I should point out that when we got to Brown v.
    Board of Education, of course, there had been several
    fundamental amendments to the----
        Senator Kennedy. But isn't that inconsistent with your
    statement that you have to interpret it according to original
    public meaning?
        Professor Mascott. Well, what about the 14th Amendment and
    the 13th Amendment and the 15th Amendment? So original public
    meaning would mean that those----
        Senator Kennedy. Well, what about them?
        Professor Mascott. Well, that would mean we would interpret
    those amendments and those protections with the understanding
    of the text and structure at the time those amendments were
    ratified, which is different, of course, in the 19th century--
    --
        Senator Kennedy. Let's go back to Brown v. Board. Look, I
    think Brown v. Board was correctly decided, and I suspect you
    do too. But if you say we interpret the Constitution according
    to the way that people at that time understood it, do you
    really think that people at that time in America supported
    racially integrated schools? Do you really----
        Professor Mascott. Well----
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Believe that?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, I think at the time of
    the ratification of the 13th, 14th Amendment--and 15th, all
    which have----
        Senator Kennedy. But do you think people at that time
    originally at that time supported integrated schools?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, on that particular
    question, I don't know it as a policy matter whether they were
    thinking about that particular issue. I think they certainly
    understood that the 14th Amendment, for which a massive part of
    this country essentially lost lives fighting the Civil War,
    certainly understood it to require racial equality----
        Senator Kennedy. But, Professor, you are not answering my
    question. I am trying to understand how you--I am just trying
    to understand how you think. It is very easy to say we
    interpret the Constitution according to its original public
    meaning, which, as I appreciate your testimony, means the way
    people who read the Constitution at that time interpreted it.
    Is that right?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Do you think that most people at
    that time looked at the United States Constitution and said,
    well, here it is, big as Dallas, racially integrated schools
    are required? Do you really believe that?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I don't know, but I----
        Senator Kennedy. And if you don't--I don't think you do
    because I think historically that wasn't the case.
        Professor Mascott. Well----
        Senator Kennedy. So how do you square that with the holding
    of Brown v. Board?
        Professor Mascott. Well, I guess what I'm trying to say is
    I think there are several steps in between that are--have not
    come up yet in our conversation, which is that you look at the
    text and structure, which of the 13th, 14th, and 15th
    Amendments clearly is requiring racial equality. And then over
    time, that has to be applied to different questions as they
    arise in context.
        So if the requirement is that all races be treated equally
    under the law, and the evidence shows that segregated schools
    is not doing that, then the requirement could be applied to
    integrate schools.
        Senator Kennedy. When you interpret a statute, you talked
    about interpreting it according to its plain meaning. What if
    the statute is ambiguous?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, if the statute----
        Senator Kennedy. What do you do if it is ambiguous?
        Professor Mascott. If it's ambiguous on the particular
    question coming before the court, I start with that phrase, but
    I also look at the context of surrounding provisions.
        Senator Kennedy. I understand you define ambiguity as the
    language plus the surrounding language.
        Professor Mascott. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. I get that part. How ambiguous does it
    have to be, 51 percent ambiguous or just a little bit
    ambiguous?
        Professor Mascott. So I have to say, I would use the same
    approach essentially in all cases, regardless of the ambiguity,
    because I would always start with the text, move to the
    surrounding provisions with the aim of fully understanding what
    Congress and the President had enacted, and only at that
    point----
        Senator Kennedy. Professor, I am going to run out of time.
    With respect, answer my question.
        Professor Mascott. Well, I----
        Senator Kennedy. Okay? You are giving me professor talk.
    How ambiguous does it have to be?
        Professor Mascott. I mean, I think under the Supreme
    Court's recent precedent in Chevron, it underscored that the
    Court can never just rest and say it is ambiguous. The Court
    has to come up with an answer.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes.
        Professor Mascott. So I would----
        Senator Kennedy. So why don't you just look at legislative
    history?
        Professor Mascott. Well, I would--well, you can't look at
    legislative history statements one by one because----
        Senator Kennedy. Why not?
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. The individual intent----
        Senator Kennedy. Why not?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, with respect because this
    body has its role in our system as an institution, not one by
    one. So your personal understanding of the law----
        Senator Kennedy. You know----
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. Doesn't matter.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. This will be my last
    question. I am sorry. Well, Coons went way over. So you are
    telling me that it doesn't help you at all to go through and
    look at the congressional record or read the committee reports
    or any of that? You don't think that is helpful in interpreting
    what a statute means?
        Professor Mascott. It depends on the way in which it is
    being read. If it gives helpful statutory history, if it helps
    to refer to other portions of context, sure, but not to give it
    legally binding impact in and of itself. I would always be
    looking at a broad range of sources and use each of these
    statements as just one piece of evidence about what people
    understood the statute to mean at the time. So, no, I would
    never take a piece of legislative history in isolation and give
    it legal impact.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Madam Chair. Thank you for
    being here and congratulations on your nomination. I would
    say----
        Professor Mascott. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. That, prior to the Dobbs
    decision, you were a pretty zealous advocate of overruling Roe.
    Is that correct?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I do not recall ever advocating
    for the overruling of Roe.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I think in December 2021 you
    said, ``The most constitutionally correct outcome in Dobbs
    would be for the Court to conclude that the 14th Amendment due
    process clause, a guarantee of process protections, contains no
    substantive right.'' Is that your position?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, yes. My scholarly and academic
    work would have been consistent with the outcome of the Dobbs
    decision and understanding there not to be a substantive due
    process clause in the 14th Amendment.
        Senator Blumenthal. You called the draft of Dobbs when it
    was leaked in May 2022 ``a marvel of a draft.'' Do you think it
    is a marvel of a draft? It became the Court's decision and its
    opinion in the case, correct?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, it did. And so, yes, I mean, I
    have spoken highly of the Dobbs decision. As I mentioned
    previously to the Senators on the Committee, would fully and
    faithfully apply the Supreme Court precedent and was happy to,
    when asked, provide extensive, you know, commentary about the
    constitutional methodology in the Dobbs opinion. I think
    actually some of those statements might have first happened
    again in a hearing by this Committee because, as I recall,
    there was a Subcommittee hearing on Senator Whitehouse's ethics
    reform bill the morning after the opinion was leaked, and this
    Committee was asking for feedback.
        Senator Blumenthal. You called it a marvel of a draft?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, and I wrote also in The Wall Street
    Journal about the opinion as well, Senator, yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. And you said about Roe that it was,
    ``not workable'' and ``really sat far out of the mainstream of
    constitutional reasoning of the Court over the past few
    decades.'' You said Roe was out of the mainstream after it was
    well-established and well-accepted law for decades?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, yes, consistent with the
    Supreme Court's own majority holding in Dobbs, which pointed
    out that even using traditional stare decisis factors, the Roe
    v. Wade decision was not one that merited the Court's stare
    decisis effect because of the development in the law over time,
    the fact that the Supreme Court itself had distanced itself
    even in follow-on decisions about abortion from the Roe
    reasoning and pointed out that the Court's text and tradition
    approach led to a different outcome in Dobbs, leaving the
    policy decision to the States and the people.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me, with apologies, interrupt
    because I have limited amounts of time. You were asked also
    about the ramifications of Dobbs, and you, in effect, dismissed
    concerns that Dobbs would affect other substantive due process
    cases. And you said, ``Loving v. Virginia, contraception, those
    are so far away from the Court's decision in Dobbs that they
    almost should not even be, I think, discussed in a realistic
    sense at this point in time based on this particular
    decision.'' So you do not view Dobbs as impacting in any way
    Loving v. Virginia or contraception cases? Is that correct?
        Professor Mascott. Number one I read the Court in Dobbs to
    be very specifically grappling with the issues before it and
    looking case-by-case at the relevant history of its own
    reasoning in that line of cases. And I think the Court--the
    majority opinion made that very clear, and then there were also
    some concurring opinions that underscored it, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. So you see Dobbs not requiring or
    implicating the potential reversal of those other decisions?
        Professor Mascott. That is correct. Not at this time, and
    of course, as you know, the only reason a case even gets to the
    Supreme Court is if the people have litigated it. And I think
    the point I was making in those comments you referenced is that
    Dobbs was very specifically oriented toward one line of cases
    being litigated at that time. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. And let me ask you about one other
    area. I think you've been an active member of the Federalist
    Society, haven't you?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. And in fact, you received the
    Federalist Society Joseph Story Award, which goes to lawyers
    who have demonstrated excellence in legal scholarship and who
    have made significant public impact in a manner that advances
    the rule of law and free society, correct?
        Professor Mascott. I was very honored to get that, yes,
    Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. But I am sure you are also aware that
    President Trump has attacked the Federalist Society, claiming
    that it gave him bad advice on his judicial nominees, and he
    has called its founder Leonard Leo a sleazebag. Do you agree
    with President Trump's criticisms of the Federalist Society?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I believe your statement is
    touching on judicial nominations, and President Trump, you
    know, alone, of course, is responsible for nominations. And
    other than that, I think I'm happy to answer questions about my
    nomination, but I have, as you point out, a significant
    background with the Federalist Society and was honored to
    receive the award.
        Senator Britt. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Before I ask my questions, I do want to make a comment, and
    Chairman Grassley touched on this at the beginning of the
    hearing. It is so disheartening, and actually it is almost
    laughable to hear our colleagues on the other side of the dais
    complain about lack of consultation with the White House.
        Now, under President Biden, there were numerous Members,
    and Senator Grassley talked about and mentioned Senator Tillis
    also this morning, and me, and Senator Hagerty that were not
    consulted at all. And there were not one, not two, but three
    judicial nominees that the Biden White House moved forward on
    without working with Senator Hagerty and me. So my colleagues
    across the dais had the opportunity to say something about
    those actions at that time, and they chose not to. They all
    went along with what they felt like was the position of the
    White House. So I find it, as I said, concerning,
    disheartening, and really curious as to why they would take the
    position they have.
        Professor Mascott, I want to give you a chance to respond
    to some of the claims that I have heard from my colleagues
    across the dais that you are not qualified for the role. And I
    found it very interesting to hear them talk about this because
    they rubberstamped people that were brought forward by the
    Biden administration who were blatantly unqualified, and they
    were inexperienced judicial nominees. And I think that your
    credentials speak for themselves. I noted that you achieved the
    highest GPA at George Washington Law School, the highest in
    history----
        Professor Mascott. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Which is significant. And,
    of course, your clerkships, which have been discussed this
    morning, and you have held senior positions at the DOJ. You
    have spent years as a professor in constitutional and
    administrative law. And your list goes on and on. So speak for
    a moment about why you are ready, why this has prepared you to
    be a fair and unbiased judge.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you so much, Senator Blackburn.
    And I am deeply honored, of course, by President Trump's
    nomination to a seat on the Third Circuit and this Committee's
    consideration. And as has been mentioned by some other Senators
    and Senator McConnell, I have had the honor of being a public
    servant and working on all three branches of Government,
    multiple positions there. I have been really grateful to serve
    for many years as a law professor, teaching students, some of
    whom are even working here today as committee staff, during
    that time, being able to file dozens of amicus briefs,
    sometimes on behalf of Senators of this Committee, in courts
    around the country, in the Supreme Court, and then working as
    an attorney in the Department of Justice and now the White
    House on issues of separation of powers and testifying at this
    Committee.
        And if I were to have the deep honor to be confirmed by
    this body, I would, in every case, bring exacting rigor and
    care and acknowledge the role of the judge as a very limited
    one in our system to resolve just discrete cases and
    controversies on questions that are brought before us where
    there is jurisdiction.
        Senator Blackburn. I wanted to talk with you a little bit,
    and you have written several pieces on the Presidential
    constitutional authority to remove executive officers, and I
    noted your law review article in 2018, ``Who are `Officers of
    the U.S.?' '' And I know that there is discussion around the
    President's ability to remove these officers from
    administrative agencies. And I know you can't talk about
    specifics, but talk generally about the State of the law when
    it comes to the President's constitutional removal power.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you, Senator. And so, as you
    mentioned, I want to be very careful sitting as a judicial
    nominee now and not as an academic in addressing issues that
    are in a very real way before many courts and many cases right
    now in the country. But as you have referenced, those pieces
    were mentioning in the Stanford piece and then others that the
    Constitution vests the executive power in the President.
        And it is by design because the President, through the
    electoral college is, of course, selected by the American
    people, and that if the President has the duty to carry out
    that power, the idea that that includes within it the
    supervisory power, and we would never want in our system of
    Government anyone really to be exercising policymaking power
    who is not accountable back to the people. And so that just
    raises questions about if there are full tenure protections,
    whether individuals might be at some point too insulated from
    the political system and Presidential supervision for it to be
    consistent with the constitutional structure.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Britt. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
        Professor Mascott, welcome. Is it fair to say that you have
    fairly little actual litigation experience outside of serving
    as amicus counsel?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, as I believe the Senator
    Judiciary questionnaire points out--and also, actually, that
    was quite extensive experience with dozens of amicus briefs,
    sometimes for Senators here. I also mentioned the background--
    --
        Senator Whitehouse. But an amicus brief is different than
    actually trying cases. Have you ever tried a case, for
    instance, been the lead counsel in a case that was tried to
    verdict?
        Professor Mascott. So, Senator, I believe as the letter
    that we submitted yesterday indicates--it was talking about the
    District of Massachusetts matter that I argued. It was a
    summary judgment in full trial, collapsed into one hearing, and
    argued that to verdict on the Title IX Department of Education
    and then also had the honor to argue on courts of appeals
    during my time at the Department of Justice and have served in
    all three branches of Government, of course.
        Senator Whitehouse. And with respect to your connections to
    Delaware, have you ever voted in Delaware?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, as I was discussing with
    Senator Coons, we, of course, have had a long time home----
        Senator Whitehouse. It is a pretty simple question. I would
    prefer if I didn't get filibustered, and I actually got an
    answer to a simple question. Have you ever voted in Delaware?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, as a public servant and
    professor here, no. I have been voting in Maryland.
        Senator Whitehouse. Have you ever registered to vote in
    Delaware?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, as a public servant and
    academic here, I am registered to vote here. If this body----
        Senator Whitehouse. Do you have a driver's license or any
    other record of licensing from the State of Delaware?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I do not yet have a Delaware
    driver's license. I do have a car that is insured in Delaware
    with--in anticipation----
        Senator Whitehouse. Because you have a summer house there?
        Professor Mascott. We have had a long-time home in--yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. And you were not admitted until May
    into the Third Circuit?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I became admitted in May in the
    Third Circuit, yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. And you have no blue slip from either
    of the two Democrat Delaware Senators?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I am really honored to be the
    President's nominee, and----
        Senator Whitehouse. With no blue slip, correct?
        Professor Mascott. Well, I don't--I didn't believe there
    were blue slips at the circuit court level at this point for
    any circuit court nominees.
        Senator Whitehouse. That was undone by our friends on the
    other side of the aisle, and now that is the new tradition, and
    I am clarifying that you have none, correct, right?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I don't because it has not been
    used for circuit court nominees.
        Senator Whitehouse. And your nomination to the Department
    of Education as general counsel was withdrawn when, today?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I believe it was referenced
    that it was yesterday.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yesterday, okay. You were on the board
    of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, I believe, at the time
    when Jeffrey Clark was hired. Do you recall that hiring?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I don't--well, I don't know
    what you mean by recall the hiring. I was on the board of the
    New Civil Liberties Alliance and just--and--up through about
    July of 2021. And, as I recall, what happened around that time
    is that--and I had a conversation with the director about it--I
    stopped being a board member. They were bringing litigation
    that involved an opinion that I had written at the Office of
    Legal Counsel in the executive branch, and I strongly disagreed
    with their stance in that litigation. It was actually bringing
    the opposite view. I also expressed that it was----
        Senator Whitehouse. I asking you about the hiring of
    Jeffrey Clark.
        Professor Mascott. But that's my--I guess my point is, as a
    member of an advisory board, first of all, of the group, I
    wouldn't have had anything to do with it, and your issue has--
    --
        Senator Whitehouse. So you weren't aware of it?
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. Nothing to do with----
        Senator Whitehouse. You weren't aware of it at the time?
        Professor Mascott. I read newspaper accounts of his hiring
    on the New Civil Liberties Alliance. As a board member,
    advisory----
        Senator Whitehouse. Nobody contacted you to ask that you
    support----
        Professor Mascott. Oh, no, no. No.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. His hiring----
        Professor Mascott. Nope.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. And you weren't----
        Professor Mascott. Nope.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Consulted by him? You
    didn't interview him?
        Professor Mascott. No, no. It was like a 24-member advisory
    board, a couple of dozen people. No.
        Senator Whitehouse. Got it. You constantly use the
    pejorative term ``administrative State.'' You have called for
    the repeal or the overturning of Humphrey's Executor. You have
    called to undo Chevron deference. You have supported the so-
    called major questions doctrine. All of these signals are
    extremely important to the fossil fuel industry, which has a
    decades-long battle against agencies that regulate its
    pollution, and which is the dominant donor interest to the
    Republican Party, and which heavily funded the half-billion-
    dollar enterprise to capture the Supreme Court. How on earth
    can you expect anybody representing an interest opposed to the
    fossil fuel industry to get a fair hearing from you?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, if I were to have the honor to
    be confirmed at the Third Circuit, as mentioned, I would be
    holding the role of a judge, which is to resolve fully and
    impartially cases and controversies, not rule on policy
    matters. And also, if one looks at a record, even of amicus
    briefs in the clinics, these are cases that are being brought
    on legal principles, and at times for parties that are holding
    different policy views, and I would continue to have the same
    tradition of impartiality for the rule of law if I had the
    honor of being confirmed.
        Senator Britt. Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would
    actually followup on Senator Whitehouse's argument. The little
    guy gets a better shot now. Look at the Loper Bright case.
    These were fishermen that, through the administrative State,
    were being then forced to pay for their own inspectors on the
    boats. And the leviathan of Government that was aimed against
    them, including their pleas for help, were ignored. So I
    actually appreciate your position on as it relates to the
    administrative State more broadly, but also your positions I
    think is the importance of separation of powers, and you are a
    national expert on that. And I am very excited about your
    nomination, so congratulations.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. Last year, of course, the Supreme Court
    overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, and you were
    gracious enough to participate in our post-Chevron working
    group, and I have the report here, which provides and outlines,
    I think, a way forward now that that deference is no longer
    with us, thankfully.
        In your view, what is the importance of that Loper Bright
    decision?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I think it was quite a
    significant way in which the Supreme Court looked, in that
    case, at the text of the Administrative Procedure Act, which,
    as this body knows, governs procedural practices across
    administrative agencies, and simply underscored and reaffirmed
    the idea that when statutory text is before a court, the court
    is supposed to look at the text as it was enacted by this body
    and signed by the President and not give a thumb on the scale
    in favor of the administrative agency's interpretation of the
    statute because--during the administrative agency's own
    regulatory proceedings but take a full and fair look at what
    the law's text means.
        Senator Schmitt. So does any deference remain in
    interpreting statutory text?
        Professor Mascott. Not on questions of law after the Loper
    Bright decision.
        Senator Schmitt. And you will faithfully apply that
    decision as a Third Circuit judge?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, of course.
        Senator Schmitt. A couple other questions I want to get to
    quickly. At Catholic University's Columbus School of Law, you
    ran a Separation of Powers Institute, is that correct?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. Why do you think the separation of powers
    is so important? Why do you think--as Justice Scalia once
    pointed out, that a lot of dictatorial, even communist regimes
    have a parchment of paper extolling the importance of
    individual rights, but it is the separation of powers that
    ultimately allows that to be meaningful in this country. Why do
    you think it is so important?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Senator. It is core to our
    constitutional structure because I think the Framers understood
    that decisionmaking needs to be divided up among multiple
    people to keep those of us who want to serve and have power
    accountable ourselves. And so at the Federal level, there's
    three different branches, as this body knows, but there's also
    the separation of powers vertically between the Federal
    Government and the States. And the policymakers are all
    accountable through elections back to the people, and it is
    core to our freedoms and our liberty and our prosperity.
        Senator Schmitt. And through that vertical and horizontal
    protection, it is meant to ultimately protect individual
    liberty, right?
        Professor Mascott. Correct, yes.
        Senator Schmitt. All of it is dispersed----
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt [continuing]. Power and--yes.
        Professor Mascott. Yes, absolutely.
        Senator Schmitt. I just have a couple final questions on a
    vertical stare decisis. In recent months, the Chief Justice,
    Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Gorsuch all emphasized the need
    for lower court judges to give some level of precedential
    weight to Supreme Court emergency docket decisions. And
    interestingly, many Democrat appointed judges are refusing to
    do that.
        I heard a lot during the initial confirmation process from
    my Democrat colleagues about how they were so concerned that
    President Trump wasn't going to obey court orders. Well, it
    turns out, district court judges appointed by Democrats with
    overtly partisan leanings are refusing to obey orders from the
    Supreme Court on questions that are four corners. There is no
    distinguishing. They just don't want to do it because they
    don't like President Trump.
        As a Third Circuit judge, will you respect Supreme Court
    precedent in emergency docket decisions?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, yes, I will respect all Supreme
    Court precedent.
        Senator Schmitt. And do you have any issues with
    overturning a lower court judge who, on your read, did not
    follow Supreme Court precedent?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I hesitate to say anything at
    all that would suggest I am giving an opinion on a particular
    case, but as a general matter, I would consider myself on the
    appeals court to be responsible for following Supreme Court
    precedent myself. And if I saw it not followed in a decision
    that was under my review, to reach a holding that is consistent
    with the Supreme Court precedent and reverse the lower court.
        Senator Schmitt. So if a lower court judge were ignoring
    the Supreme Court, like my friends on the other side have
    wanted to juice up the public that President Trump would do,
    which he has never done, you would have the courage in that
    moment to say to that lower court judge, you need to follow
    actually Supreme Court precedent in ruling here?
        Professor Mascott. If I thought a lower court decision was
    incorrect with that Supreme Court precedent, yes, I absolutely
    would reverse it if I had jurisdiction and make it be
    consistent with the Supreme Court precedent, yes.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you. Congratulations. I think you
    are going to be great on the bench. Thank you.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam
    Chair. Issues have already been raised about Delaware, and I
    have a lot of respect, as does everyone in this room, for
    Senator Coons and his views of who should--his ability to weigh
    in on who should be a judge in his State. But I am going to put
    that aside. I know that has been raised, and I am very
    concerned about that.
        I want to lead with what Senator Schmitt was asking about,
    and that is Justice Scalia's comment that our Constitution
    separates powers to prevent the centralization of power in one
    person or one party because when power is centralized in one
    person, ``the game is over''--that is his words--for rights.
        So, President Trump has claimed, ``I have an Article II
    where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.'' He
    said that as recently as--on August 26, he said, ``I have the
    right to do anything I want to do. I am the President of the
    United States.''
        Do you believe that the President is able to do, ``anything
    he wants to do''?
        Professor Mascott. Senator Klobuchar, of course, I--it's
    not for me to comment on individual, you know, statements
    really by anyone else. The matter of Presidential discretion,
    as this body knows, within Article II and the executive power,
    there are a number of responsibilities that the Executive has
    within which the Executive----
        Senator Klobuchar. But I am just asking----
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. Has full discretion----
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Okay. I am just asking you if you
    think, under our Constitution, the President has the right to
    do anything, as he said----
        Professor Mascott. Well----
        Senator Klobuchar [continuing]. He wants to do?
        Professor Mascott. Well, I suppose it--I don't know the--I
    suppose it depends on the context of the remarks is kind of
    my--with respect, my point, if we're talking about a pardon
    decision, if we're talking about nomination decisions, there
    are many, many ways in which the President has full discretion
    that would----
        Senator Klobuchar. But you will not say that he doesn't
    have the power to do whatever he wants to do under the
    Constitution. He said anything he wants to do. He said ``the
    right to do anything I want to do.'' That is what he said.
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, I guess I'm saying that
    it--we're--it's--Presidential discretion depends on the context
    of the situation. You mentioned before separation of powers. Of
    course, also, like we have talked about today, Congress has a
    lot of power----
        Senator Klobuchar. You won't say it, so I guess the answer
    is clear. So last October, you told a group of students that
    you believe that, ``Presidents are actually too weak.'' That's
    at Yale. The President has unilaterally frozen appropriated
    funds, shuttered congressionally created departments, attacked
    the independence of the Federal Reserve and agencies Congress
    set to be independent, refused to put Democratic commissioners
    on independent commissions, imposed costly tariffs, detained
    individuals without due process, and gone after universities,
    law firms, and journalists. Do you still believe that
    ``Presidents are actually too weak'' after these unprecedented
    power grabs?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, without commenting on a lot of
    various, you know, actions and current issues that might be
    before the courts or currently are, my recollection of the
    context of the statement that I was--that you quote was that it
    was a conversation about Presidential supervision of the
    executive branch. And at that time, my understanding of the
    Constitution remains to be that the President is vested with
    the executive power and therefore is in charge of the executive
    branch. And I believe I was making comments on, historically,
    as the Supreme Court itself has pointed out in different
    opinions, Presidents have not always been free to fully
    supervise their branch. And I was putting forward a hope that
    the constitutional principles, as they are historically
    understood, would continue to be respected.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Could we just move to guns here?
    As you know, we have had a number of horrific shootings in
    Minnesota this year, including involving assault weapons. You
    have praised Justice Thomas' views on the Second Amendment,
    which are often in dissent even on a very conservative Supreme
    Court. What is your understanding of the Second Amendment and
    whether Congress is permitted to pass laws to regulate the sale
    of guns? And I ask that because Scalia actually said, ``Like
    most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
    unlimited. It is not a right to keep or carry any weapon
    whatsoever.''
        And Thomas was the only one who struck down a law to stop
    domestic abusers from possessing a gun, legislation I worked
    on. He was also one of just two Justices who would have struck
    down regulations of ghost guns. And in June 2025, he would have
    taken a case challenging Maryland's assault weapons ban.
        So what I want to know is, given that you have praised him,
    what is your view on your understanding of the Second Amendment
    and whether Congress is permitted to pass laws to regulate the
    sale of guns in any way?
        Professor Mascott. So, Senator, I want to be careful in--as
    in all my answers, of not straying into commenting on something
    that could come before me as a judge, but I agree with the--or
    would follow Supreme Court precedent that there is an
    individual right to bear arms and that in looking case-by-case
    basis, it is important to look at the history and tradition of
    what the regulation of guns was at that time. And so if a case
    came before me raising that question, I would faithfully and
    fully apply Supreme Court precedent.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. I would like to enter a letter
    into the record from 53 legal scholars. They write, ``We are
    united in our view that Professor Mascott would be an
    outstanding addition to the Federal judiciary. Professor
    Mascott's impressive legal career includes service in all three
    branches of the Federal Government, in private practice, and in
    the legal academy. Her work has been cited not just by many
    scholars but by judges at every level of the Federal judiciary,
    including the Supreme Court. Some of us agree with her
    analysis. Others do not. We agree that, on the whole, Professor
    Mascott's academic work demonstrates the sort of intellectual
    rigor and depth that will serve her well during her career as a
    judge.''
        Professor Mascott. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Professor Mascott, the Congress has authorized the creation
    of inspectors generals. In fiscal year 1924, it saved $71
    billion. In FY 1923, it saved $93 billion. Is it your view that
    Congress has the authority to establish inspector generals that
    review the appropriations and expenditures that Congress
    authorizes?
        Professor Mascott. So, Senator, as with all the questions,
    I want to, in answering, stick with general principles in case
    there would ever be a case before me raising questions related
    to inspectors general. I don't understand there to have been a
    general constitutional question raised about inspectors
    general. I mean, I think in--with respect to the question about
    their role in the system, as I mentioned in prior discussions
    on executive power, it would always, of course, be important
    that the office is structured so that that position is
    ultimately under the supervision of the executive branch and
    ultimately the President. I realize that raises constitutional
    tension with the role of the inspector general to look at
    records.
        Senator Welch. There is a tension, okay? Congress clearly
    has the right to appropriate funds, correct?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, it is a constitutional power, of
    course, to appropriate funds.
        Senator Welch. And in the power to appropriate funds, do
    you contest the obligation that Congress has to make certain
    there is oversight in the expenditure of those funds?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Congress--or, sorry, Senator, as
    the Supreme Court's indicated in precedent in the last couple
    of years, part of Congress' legislative power, yes, includes
    the ability to get records and to find out what is happening in
    the agencies that it legislates.
        Senator Welch. You have some question as to whether
    Congress, in pursuance of that obligation to oversee the wise
    use of taxpayer money according to appropriations Congress
    made, the Congress can't have an inspector general that is
    doing that work for us on a daily basis on behalf of the
    American people?
        Professor Mascott. Oh, I certainly think Congress can
    create an office that is responsible for accounting and keeping
    records and can ask for records.
        Senator Welch. The Executive has fired the inspectors
    general, correct?
        Professor Mascott. Well, I don't--as a factual matter, I
    don't recall how many firings there have been. My question also
    said it needs to be subject to----
        Senator Welch. It doesn't matter how many. The Executive
    has fired without giving Congress the 30-day notice required in
    the statute.
        Professor Mascott. So--but, Senator, my earlier question--
    and again, now we're starting to get into the kind of specifics
    of things that could come before me if I were a judge, but in
    general----
        Senator Welch. That is specific.
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. Even inspectors general,
    anybody who is responsible for any portion of the executive
    power has to be responsible to the President, and it is because
    of the core----
        Senator Welch. So----
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. Value in our system----
        Senator Welch [continuing]. That is----
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. Of elections.
        Senator Welch. But that is the tension. We have a
    responsibility in Congress to appropriate funds. Correct. We
    have a responsibility to make certain that the funds that are
    appropriated and taxed, paid for by the American people, are
    wisely spent. Do you have a dispute with that?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, you do, but with respect, when
    we are talking about inspector general, which is in your
    hypothetical----
        Senator Welch. I am going to interrupt for a second----
        Professor Mascott. Okay.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. Because we are not getting an
    answer here. And I am acknowledging there is a tension, but it
    goes back to what Senator Klobuchar said. There is a tension
    because in the constitutional system, it was designed to have a
    tension so that there wouldn't be the concentration of power in
    one branch, the executive, the legislature, or the judiciary.
        Let me ask another question. If Congress has the authority
    to impose tariffs, and that is a constitutional responsibility
    and right we have, is that correct?
        Professor Mascott. Yes, Congress has legislative
    responsibility for taxing, yes.
        Senator Welch. So does the Executive have the legal
    authority to impose a tariff because the Executive doesn't like
    what the judicial process is doing in a country like Brazil?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, the question of tariffs is
    actively----
        Senator Welch. No, I am not----
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. Before the courts.
        Senator Welch. I am not asking just about the tariffs. I am
    asking, is there constitutional authority for an Executive to
    decide to use the tool of a tariff because he disrespects and
    dislikes the judicial policy in another country?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, my understanding of the legal
    basis for the tariffs is statutes that this body enacted with
    broad discretionary language, and tariffs within the terms of
    those statutes would, of course, be lawful.
        Senator Welch. Last question. Who won the 2020 election?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, President Biden was certified
    as the winner of the 2020 election.
        Senator Welch. So you can't tell me who won.
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, President Biden was
    certified the winner of the 2020 election.
        Senator Welch. Did he win the election or did it just
    accidentally get certified?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I have answered that question.
    He was certified the winner of the election.
        Senator Welch. I yield back.
        Senator Britt. Senator Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Professor, you have appeared before the Committee many
    times, but the last time you were in Committee was for a
    hearing entitled ``When the President Does It, that Means It's
    Not Illegal: The Supreme Court's Unprecedented Immunity
    Decision.'' At the time you described that immunity decision as
    modest, and I want to ask you about the modest impact of that
    decision.
        When John Sauer was here for his confirmation hearing, I
    asked him about an argument he made in that case before the
    court of appeals in which he was asked specifically by the
    court of appeals judge, one of them, if the President were to
    order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent, would he
    be immune? His answer, apparently, was yes, unless the
    President's party was willing to impeach him first. Is that
    your view as well? Would he be immune from prosecution for
    using the military to assassinate a political opponent?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, as a lower court judge, I
    would be fully bound by Supreme Court precedent. I don't--I
    mean, on that particular question--and this is one reason I
    address the opinion as modest--the opinion addresses only
    portions of Presidential immunity. It specifically is
    addressing criminal immunity.
        Senator Schiff. I will ask you a specific question. Would
    the President be immune from prosecution if he ordered SEAL
    Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent? Yes or no?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, under the Supreme Court
    precedent on that question, the Supreme Court has specifically
    not answered it.
        Senator Schiff. Is that a difficult question? Is that an
    open question in your view?
        Professor Mascott. Well, Senator, under the contours of
    Trump v. United States, which deals with criminal immunity, I'm
    not sure that it fully answers all of the political mechanisms
    that would be in place to address and keep such a horrific
    situation from ever occurring.
        Senator Schiff. So you are unclear as to whether a
    President could be prosecuted for that. Is that what you are
    saying? You don't know the answer?
        Professor Mascott. Well, I think what I'm saying is that
    within the particular contours of criminal immunity discussed
    in that opinion, it addresses actually what is an official act.
    And so I think the first threshold question would be whether
    one could ever conceive of such a thing as an official act.
        Senator Schiff. I don't want to filibuster my question. It
    is very simple. If the President tomorrow would order SEAL Team
    6 to assassinate a political opponent, in your view, is he
    immune from criminal prosecution, absent an impeachment first?
        Professor Mascott. If it's not an official act, a phrase
    that has not yet been fully defined in the courts, he's----
        Senator Schiff. If he is using the military to do it, which
    the Court said he has absolute immunity when he deploys the
    military, is he immune or not?
        Professor Mascott. Well, I don't read the Court's decision
    to say that any use of the military outside of official acts
    comes within its immunity contours. And as this body knows,
    because of various drone strikes and other things----
        Senator Schiff. So under the question I asked you, what is
    the answer, Professor? Yes or no? You are----
        Professor Mascott. Senator----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Used to answering questions
    and asking your student questions. I am asking you a very
    simple question. Yes or no? Is the President immune if he uses
    SEAL Team 6 to kill a political opponent?
        Professor Mascott. Senator----
        Senator Schiff. Yes or no?
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. With respect----
        Senator Schiff. Okay.
        Professor Mascott [continuing]. I think the Supreme Court--
    --
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You are not willing to answer
    the question. Let me ask you a different question. It was
    recently reported that the President and his family made around
    $6 billion from the sale of crypto assets. Some of that money,
    much of that money comes from the Gulf. If the President were
    to sell a foreign policy decision to a Gulf nation in exchange
    for a crypto donation, is he immune from prosecution for that?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, I don't know anything about the
    situation that you are describing. As I have said----
        Senator Schiff. But you know something about the immunity
    decision. You said it was modest. I am trying to determine just
    how modest you think it is. Can the President sell U.S. foreign
    policy to the highest crypto donor and have a get-out-of-jail-
    free card?
        Professor Mascott. Senator----
        Senator Schiff. Or is he liable for prosecution?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, if I may, the Constitution has
    many constraints for all of us. To carry----
        Senator Schiff. You don't want to answer that question. Let
    me ask you a very different question. If the President were to
    use the military in direct violation of court order,
    deliberately, knowingly, blatantly use the military in
    violation of court order, is he immune from any liability?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, as I said when I testified last
    September about the decision, the Clinton administration had an
    opinion----
        Senator Schiff. I am not asking about the Clinton
    administration.
        Professor Mascott. Well, this is directly relevant. The
    President--the position of the Clinton administration is that
    the President, while serving----
        Senator Schiff. I am not asking the position of the Clinton
    administration. I am asking your position. Your view of the
    immunity decision, which you have described as modest, I am
    trying to determine just how modest you think it is.
        Professor Mascott. So----
        Senator Schiff. You are unwilling to say a President can't
    kill an opponent and be liable. You are unwilling to say the
    President can't sell foreign policy of the United States for
    cryptocurrency. You're unwilling to say he can't do that and
    still be immune. My question is, can he use the military in
    deliberate violation of court order and be immune? Yes or no?
        Professor Mascott. Senator, you are asking very specific
    questions about whether our criminal justice system is the
    forum to punish----
        Senator Schiff. Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. I would like to enter into the
    record a letter from 48 former Justice Department officials
    that are familiar with Professor Mascott's work. They
    explained, ``Her academic scholarship has been cited in Supreme
    Court opinions. She has argued high-stakes Federal cases, and
    she has submitted scores of briefs in courts across the
    country. Mrs. Mascott has been a world-class mentor to hundreds
    of aspiring lawyers. She was also a standout attorney at the
    Department of Justice, and her judgment is beyond reproach. She
    will make an excellent judge.''
        Without objection, the letter is entered into the record.
        Senator Britt. Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        And Ms. Mascott, this doesn't directly pertain to you, but
    I just want to say for the record, I am watching, in the short
    time I have been in the United States Senate, the continued
    deterioration of the advise-and-consent role of the United
    States Senate. I know Senator Coons very well, one of my few
    friends I had in the Senate before I became a Senator, who
    works in a bipartisan way, in a way that is a model really for
    the United States Senate. He made it very clear to the White
    House he was willing to work with them to find a candidate
    acceptable to them that could be a consensus and unifying
    candidate. But unfortunately, they are strongly objecting to
    your nomination.
        And I know and I have heard from Members of this Committee
    on the other side of the aisle how much they reacted when a
    similar situation happened, or at least when a nominee was put
    forward in the Biden administration that didn't ultimately go
    forward to a vote. Well, this mirrors my experience with the
    vacant Third Circuit court seat in New Jersey, which was filled
    by Emil Bove. With your nomination, we now have two judicial
    nominees to the Third Circuit that do not have home State
    Senator support.
        More than that, their objections, I think, are principled
    because of your lack of ties to the circuit on the appellate
    court. You will be reviewing decisions of the District Courts
    in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands
    who haven't appeared in this circuit and have very few ties.
    There is a reason why our Framers put these very important
    pillars into our Constitution.
        And what I am seeing right now is something that I know
    confidently that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    would not accept, would find problematic. And to do it in a
    district where there are Senators who are very much willing to
    support Republican nominees that are done in a process that
    brings us together and doesn't yet again not only divide us,
    but ultimately continues to deteriorate the role that we have,
    I find highly objectionable.
        But Ms. Mascott, you are before us, and I want to jump
    right in. In your Senate questionnaire, you describe your
    selection--I am sorry. When the President tried to fire FTC
    commissioners, I believe illegally so, Rebecca Slaughter and
    Alvaro Bedoya, I led over 40 of my colleagues in an amicus
    brief before the Court. In our brief, we defended the statutory
    protections Congress gave to the FTC commissioners to prevent a
    President from firing an FTC commissioner without cause. These
    protections were upheld by the Supreme Court in a 100-year-old
    precedent, almost 100-year-old, the Humphrey's Executor
    decision, which I know you are familiar with.
        These protections exist because we need the FTC and other
    independent agencies to remain independent. The FTC breaks up
    monopolies, protects children's privacy online, and protects
    consumers by encouraging competition that keeps prices low at
    the grocery store, the pharmacy, and gas stations. But you
    argued that Humphrey's Executor was ``not correctly decided.''
    You were arguing essentially that independent agencies, that
    the FTC, maybe even the Federal Reserve, were never meant to be
    independent and shall serve at the pleasure of the President.
    Can you explain how an agency tasked with protecting American
    consumers can possibly remain independent if a President can
    fire its members at will for any reason?
        Professor Mascott. So, Senator, thank you for the question,
    and I want to be careful in giving an answer. I know you
    referenced in my academic writings to not stray into definitive
    statements that would be a problem as a judicial nominee.
    Structurally, with constitutional principles, my scholarship
    and those comments were referencing the principle that the
    President is vested with the executive power and so needs to be
    fully in charge of the executive branch, and that within our
    system we have checks for everyone. And so if there were a
    fully independent commission, who would be responsible for
    checking their actions if it is not the Presidential
    supervisor? Now certainly Congress, through its appropriations
    power, through the contours of the power that it gives to the
    office, through imposing constraints, would certainly have a
    role. And so I think that is a way in which a separation of
    powers would operate effectively.
        Senator Booker. So I am going to have more questions for
    the record, but I want to just let you know clearly that I
    believe we have a President who has authoritarian ambitions. I
    believe we have a President right now who is openly violating
    court orders, openly violating clear principles of our
    Constitution. We have a President that is threatening judges
    that disagree with him and the independence of the judiciary.
    We have a President that is assuming responsibilities like
    spending powers clearly laid out in the Article I branch.
        I am doing a lot of reading recently about the
    deterioration of democracies around the globe, and it is
    amazing how this President is doing things that speak to a very
    chilling and very sobering reality of a person who does not
    have respect for our Constitution and is doing things, to me,
    that could undermine our democracy, its strength, the trust in
    our institutions, or worse.
        I have a big suspicion now that he is putting forward
    judges that are more loyal to him than they are to
    constitutional principles. I believe we are in a dangerous
    time, and I am going to have questions for you for the record,
    but I will say to you in this open hearing that your job is not
    to be President Trump's lawyer on the courts, but it is a
    sacred obligation.
        And when the independence of agencies, when the checks and
    balances of our Constitution are under attack, as they are
    right now, it really is chilling to me that we have a judge
    nominee before us that cannot state unequivocally that they
    will protect not just the Constitution, but the important and
    urgent independencies of agencies and the urgency we have right
    now to deepen our commitment to constitutional principles. And
    so I look forward to getting your answers on the record, and I
    thank you very much for the indulgence to the Chairwoman.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. Professor Mascott, you have had a
    lot coming at you. I want to say congratulations on your
    nomination, and I wanted to give you the opportunity to think
    if there are any questions that you would like more time to
    answer or to dig into, I certainly would love to hear those
    responses. I know how these back-and-forths can be, and
    certainly, we would love if there is anything that you didn't
    get to address to give you that opportunity to do that.
        But when I am looking at your background, graduating from
    law school with the highest GPA ever recorded at George
    Washington University Law School, clerked for two Justices on
    the Supreme Court, and authored 29 published scholarly papers
    with a combined total of over 5,700 downloads, you and your
    work have been specifically cited by Justices of the Supreme
    Court both in written opinions and oral arguments. We have
    heard some today about your time in academia.
        What I think people need to understand is that you have not
    retreated to the ivy tower of academia. Unlike most law
    professors, you clearly kept one foot in appellate practice and
    then the other filing amicus briefs obviously in consequential
    appeals before the Supreme Court and Federal courts of appeals
    and also being there in the classroom.
        Supreme Court Justices have even mentioned you by name at
    oral arguments, spotlighting the position that you have
    advanced in an amicus brief. You have also stood in Federal
    court on behalf of the United States and authored scholarship
    that Supreme Courts have cited eight times, underscoring your
    contributions to these courts and scholarly understanding of
    all that is in front of us. That blend of practice, appellate
    advocacy, and scholarship, all while juggling the demands of
    being a professor are rare and exceptional.
        I would love for you to take a few minutes and talk a
    little bit about how you believe that has shaped your judicial
    philosophy, and then also would like to hear anything that you
    feel like you haven't had an opportunity to answer.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you very much, Senator. And I've
    been really honored to serve in all of those venues, and if
    this body were to do the honor of confirming President Trump's
    nomination of me to the Third Circuit, I would of course carry
    out that duty with a lot of seriousness and rigor, upholding
    the rule of law to the best of my ability impartially according
    to the text and structure of the Constitution. And the
    opportunity to serve in all three branches of Government has
    really helped to provide experience that I think would give a
    good foundation of being able to understand the limited role of
    a judge.
        And as far as more comments, I'm just very grateful for
    everyone's time this morning and am just really so thrilled and
    moved to think about the possibility of continuing to be able
    to serve this country if I were confirmed to the judiciary.
        Senator Britt. Well, thank you for your willingness to
    serve.
        This concludes panel 1. We appreciate your testimony, Ms.
    Mascott, and you are excused.
        Professor Mascott. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Will the witnesses for panel 2, the
    nominees, please come forward and stand at the witness table. I
    will now administer the oath. Would you all raise your right
    hand, please, and answer this question?
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Senator Britt. Thank you very much. You may be seated.
        Well, welcome. And as customary in our process, if you
    desire to introduce the people that are with you, including
    your family, then you may be able to do that and then give your
    opening statement. We are going to start with Justice
    Chamberlin, and then we will just go right down the line.
    Justice Chamberlin, the floor is yours.

      STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS
       UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
                              MISSISSIPPI

        Judge Chamberlin. First, I would like to thank Chairman
    Grassley, acting Chairperson Britt, and Ranking Member Durbin.
    I appreciate you and the Members of this Committee for holding
    this hearing.
        I would like to thank President Trump. It is a tremendous
    honor to receive this nomination and to be here today.
        I would also like to thank Senators Wicker and Hyde-Smith
    for their kind remarks earlier this morning. I've known each of
    them for many years, and I greatly appreciate the kind words.
        I have with me today my wife, Kim. We just celebrated 33
    years of marriage not very long ago. She herself has been a
    public servant for decades, and importantly to me today, she
    has stood by me during any endeavor I have undertaken, and I
    have tried several during my career.
        I would like to thank a few people or mention a few people
    that are not here today but that are viewing from home or
    otherwise. My mother, she would not--she's back home in
    Hernando. She would not miss this for anything in the world
    other than her irrational fear of flying, which I believe is
    the same reason my mother-in-law is watching from home.
        I would like to recognize my brother, Larry, and his--my
    sister-in-law, Juanita, who are both doing the same, as well as
    my brother-in-law, Don, and my sister-in-law, Sydney. Finally,
    I would recognize my son, William, and my daughter-in-law,
    Sarah. They are back home in Jonesboro, Arkansas, where they
    work for Arkansas State University, him in the athletic
    department, her in communications, and they are getting ready
    for their first-ever matchup against the University of Arkansas
    in football. And as you know, in the South, football is king.
        I would briefly mention a couple of mentors if I may. I
    would mention Bill Austin, who gave me my first job back in my
    hometown. He and the law firm, Billy Myers, Mary Monteith,
    Debbie Brandon, each taught me many, many things in their own
    way about the law, and I am greatly appreciative to Bill Austin
    for taking me under his wing.
        I would also like to mention my aunt, Jeanette Martin. She
    was the political member of the family, and she taught me that
    it doesn't cost anything to be nice to people.
        And finally, I would like to give a short dedication at
    this hearing to my oldest and dearest friend, who passed away
    unexpectedly a month ago. If you knew Louie Smith, you would
    love him, and I want to dedicate this hearing to him.
        I thank you each for this honor, and I look forward to
    answering your questions.
        Senator Booker. Madam Chairwoman, he mentioned an
    extraordinary wife. I just don't know of all the incredible
    women that are out there who it is. Can he identify her? There
    she is.
        Senator Britt. And also, congratulations on your incredible
    news, speaking of outstanding wives.
        Senator Booker. I don't know about the judge and his
    qualifications. I am looking forward to reading more about him,
    but I do want to know how you keep a woman that is much better
    than you and stay married to her, so I look forward to that.
        Senator Britt. He just got engaged this weekend. It is a
    whole thing.
        Judge Chamberlin. Congratulations.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
        Judge Chamberlin. And I outkicked my coverage.
        Senator Booker. I did too, sir, as a football player,
    former football player, as the Chairwoman's husband, I know
    what that means.
        Senator Britt. Congratulations, Senator Booker. Mr. LaCour.

    STATEMENT OF EDMUND G. LaCOUR, JR., NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
       STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

        Mr. LaCour. Thank you, Senator Britt. Thank you to Chairman
    Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, other Members of the Committee
    for having this hearing today. I'm deeply honored to be here.
        I'd like to first thank Almighty God, to whom I owe all
    good things. I would like to also thank President Donald Trump
    for the great honor of this nomination. I've got a few people
    to thank, including my lovely wife, who I think was taking my
    boys out on a little tour of the Senate. She should be back
    momentarily. Thank you as well to the dear friends of ours who
    are keeping our two younger and noisier children while we are
    up here in D.C. We love you all very much. Thank you to the
    many family and friends who are here present and also watching
    from afar, especially to my parents who always instilled in me
    the value of developing my talents to serve others and who made
    so much of that possible for me.
        Finally, I would like to thank many former colleagues and
    current colleagues of mine who helped shape me as a lawyer,
    past colleagues at Baker Botts, Bancroft, and Kirkland, as well
    as my current colleagues at the Alabama Attorney General's
    Office who've set the bar so high as a lawyer--or as lawyers
    and helped me to reach it. Thank you to the judge I clerked
    for, Chief Judge Pryor, who has been just a phenomenal mentor
    and example as a man and a jurist. And then finally to Attorney
    General Steve Marshall, who gave me the opportunity to serve
    our home State and has supported me in so many other ways since
    then. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Yes, and your wife and boys have entered the
    building.
        Justice Lewis.

    STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM W. LEWIS, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
        STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

        Judge Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I can't tell you what
    an honor it is to be before this Committee. As a political
    science major, I am very happy right now.
        Also, Ranking Member Durbin, Senator Grassley, thank you
    for allowing me to be here. I'd like to thank President Trump
    for the nomination. I'd like to also thank Governor Ivey for
    supporting me in my role as a State judge. And I'd also like to
    thank the people of Alabama, who have pretty much unanimously
    supported me throughout my political career.
        We have a lot of brothers and sisters in my family, so in
    the interest of time, I won't introduce all of my family
    specifically, but all these folks in church on the front row
    here are my family, and I am honored to have them here, as well
    as my many friends and colleagues and even employees. Thank
    you.
        Senator Britt. Thank you very much.
        Justice Maxwell.

    STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES DONALD MAXWELL, II, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS
       UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
                              MISSISSIPPI

        Judge Maxwell. Am I on?
        Senator Britt. You are.
        Judge Maxwell. Senator Britt, Chairman Grassley, Ranking
    Member Durbin, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you
    for holding this meeting here today, and I want to give special
    thanks to Senators Hyde-Smith and Senator Wicker for their kind
    words and their support throughout this process. And I want to
    thank President Trump for the nomination and for that honor.
    It's been a dream of mine to serve on the Federal bench in the
    Northern District of Mississippi.
        They told us to keep our remarks brief, and I'm going to
    try to do so, but I do have a few family members to recognize
    and some special guests. And the first one, of course, that I
    want to start with is my wife, Mindy Maxwell, who I actually
    met in the Federal courthouse for the Northern District of
    Mississippi while I was in law school. And we've been married
    now for 23 years. And I want to say this to Senator Booker. I
    can tell you beyond a shadow of any doubt that when the good
    Lord put Mindy Maxwell on this planet, he didn't create another
    woman like her, and she has been a very special wife, wonderful
    to me, and a terrific mother to our children. She's also a
    consummate professional, and, you know, she's also my best
    friend. And I know that--and I congratulate you on your
    wedding, and I hope that you have that same experience that
    I've had with my wife, Mindy.
        Senators, I wish that my kids were here today for you to be
    able to meet them. They're both in college, hopefully in class
    right now. My daughter, May, is a sophomore at Justice Lewis'
    alma mater, Sewanee, in Tennessee, and my son, Trip, is playing
    football. He's a quarterback. He's a redshirt sophomore, kind
    of near your old stomping grounds. He's out in California
    playing in Los Altos at Foothill Community College, at least he
    was last night when I checked with him. I don't know if he's
    hit the portal today, which is definitely a possibility.
        [Laughter.]
        Judge Maxwell. Moving on from that, Senators, my mother,
    Bebe Maxwell, was not able to attend today. She would have
    loved to have been here. I know she's watching on TV from
    Derma, Mississippi, population of 900, probably on her knees
    praying for me like she has done for most of my life. My
    sister, Amanda, is watching from Houston, Texas.
        And I have some special guests. My law clerk, Beth Archer,
    is here. My judicial assistant, Ellen Ford, is here, and one of
    our family friends, Blake Neely.
        Before I conclude and close, I wanted to say a few words
    about somebody who is no longer with us but who has been a
    mentor throughout my life, and that's my father, Jim Maxwell.
    He was a trial lawyer's trial lawyer. My rides to school as a
    kid were a little bit different probably than most others. I
    didn't get to control the radio. He did, and he played tapes of
    the greats, Racehorse Haynes, Melvin Belli, Moe Levine, Percy
    Foreman, and later on Gerry Spence. Looking back, I hated it at
    the time, but right now, I'm glad he didn't change that dial.
        Senators, just in closing, I want to thank you again for
    this opportunity. I look forward to answering your questions.
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        Mr. Mooty.

     STATEMENT OF HAROLD D. MOOTY, III, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
       STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

        Mr. Mooty. Senator Britt, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
    Durbin, Members of the Committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to appear before you today. I'd like to begin by
    thanking President Donald Trump for the honor of nominating me
    to the United States District Court in my home State of
    Alabama.
        To Senator Tuberville, thank you for those kind words
    during the introduction.
        To Senator Britt, God is good more than anyone else. It's
    been your tireless service to this country that inspired me to
    answer the call to serve. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        Mr. Mooty. I'd like to, first, for 17 years of private
    practice, I could spend all morning taking up too much time
    thanking everyone. I just want to start with my family. My
    mother and father are both here from Montgomery, along with my
    brother. My father taught me what it means to be a lawyer and
    how to treat other people with respect, and I know my brother
    has learned similar lessons practicing law with my father.
        My immediate family from Huntsville is here. My lovely
    wife, beautiful and also a practicing attorney, and our two
    middle school-aged children are here from Huntsville. And so
    many others made the trip to D.C. to support my nomination. I'd
    like to thank them for making the trip. And also, thank you to
    those who are watching remotely for also supporting me through
    this process.
        Senator Britt, thank you again, and I look forward to
    answering the Committee's questions.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. I am going to reserve my time for
    later in the hearing.
        And Senator Durbin, I am going to go ahead and kick it to
    you.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Britt. Appreciate it, and
    thank you all for being here. I apologize for stepping away,
    but Senator Grassley and I were actually on the Senate floor
    conducting some business relative to the Committee, so we were
    not taking lunch breaks. We were busy during that period of
    time.
        Mr. LaCour, you were Solicitor General for the State of
    Alabama. Is that true?
        Mr. LaCour. That's true, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. And there came a time when you were
    involved, I believe in 2023, in the drawing of maps for--were
    they legislative or congressional districts?
        Mr. LaCour. Senator, that case is still in active
    litigation, and I am an attorney for my clients. I want to be
    careful not to tread on any privileges. But there is some
    evidence that came out in litigation that State lawyers were
    advising State officials on issues of State law, which is
    something that the Attorney General's Office in Alabama, and in
    many States, does do with pending legislation.
        Senator Durbin. Could you clarify, were these legislative
    districts or congressional districts?
        Mr. LaCour. Sorry, Senator. These were congressional
    districts.
        Senator Durbin. Okay. And the case is still pending?
        Mr. LaCour. Yes, Senator. We have appealed to the U.S.
    Supreme Court.
        Senator Durbin. Public reporting and testimony revealed
    that you played a significant role in working with the State
    legislature to create maps that continue to disregard Federal
    court orders and suppress the influence of Black voters. Would
    you like to comment on that?
        Mr. LaCour. Senator, yes, I would like to say, again, we
    have arguments that we advanced in the case as to why that 2023
    map is consistent with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and
    with equal protection clauses demands that States not use race
    to sort voters into different districts. And when it comes to
    defiance of court orders, I don't think any court order has
    been defied in that case. There was a court order in 2022, back
    in January, a preliminary injunction entered against our
    earlier 2021 plan, and that order was complied with to the
    point where we got a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.
        Senator Durbin. I hate to interrupt you, but I am going to
    ask a specific question so that we get to the heart of this.
    State lawmakers said you helped draw the new map as solicitor
    general in a room across from State legislatures. You pushed
    for the inclusion of so-called legislative findings and helped
    write talking points for them. Are you aware of that assertion?
        Mr. LaCour. Senator, I'm aware of that evidence and those--
    --
        Senator Durbin. True?
        Mr. LaCour [continuing]. Allegations. Senator, all I'm
    going to say is what the evidence shows in the case because,
    again, I'm an attorney that is still litigating. There are
    privilege issues that I do not want to overstep.
        Senator Durbin. In the case of Allen v. Milligan that went
    before the U.S. Supreme Court, I understand in 2022 you argued
    that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act required evidence of
    discriminatory intent to prove a violation. Do you understand
    now that that is different than what the law says?
        Mr. LaCour. Senator, we presented several arguments in that
    case. I think the Supreme Court has agreed that intent is not
    irrelevant under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In that
    case, we presented an argument that was similar to one that
    Frank Easterbrook had adopted for the Seventh Circuit, that if
    you're trying to determine whether a map is dilutive, it's
    helpful to have a benchmark, a dilutive compared to what. And
    we had argued that if a plan that is being attacked under
    Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act looks like a map you might
    expect from a race-neutral process, then it's not
    discriminating against anyone on account of race. Ultimately,
    the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote, did not adopt that
    particular argument, but the litigation continues.
        Senator Durbin. Judge Lewis, you have been on the bench
    since 2016. The Alabama judicial canons state that ``It is
    desirable that a judge or candidate for election to judicial
    office endeavor not to be involved in the internal workings of
    a political organization.'' You have served as a member of the
    executive committee of the Elmore County political organization
    since 2006, including chairman since 2018, and the State
    party's executive committee since 2008. Why did you not follow
    the recommendation of the Alabama judicial canons?
        Judge Lewis. Senator, that was--it is a recommendation, but
    I also checked with the ethics and, of course, the JIC, which
    is our regulatory agency, and they were--they permitted me to
    do that.
        Senator Durbin. Pardon me? Who permitted you?
        Judge Lewis. The Judicial Inquiry Commission, JIC. It's our
    regulatory body. And we run partisan elections in Alabama. I'm
    an elected official, so that was kind of a segue into my
    political career.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you. Senator Britt, I would like to
    have an additional 60 seconds if you don't----
        Senator Britt. Absolutely.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Object.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely.
        Senator Durbin. Justice Maxwell, in Nash v. State, you
    upheld a 12-year sentence for a defendant convicted of a
    misdemeanor--12 years--convicted of a misdemeanor for
    possessing a cell phone while in jail. You wrote, and I quote
    in that decision, ``While obviously harsh, the sentence is not
    grossly disproportionate.'' Twelve years in prison for a
    misdemeanor possession of a cell phone. Please explain.
        Judge Maxwell. Senator, first, I would like to clarify that
    I was not the trial judge in that particular case, and this was
    not a misdemeanor charge. It was a felony offense that was
    charged by the district attorney, and our role as the
    Mississippi Supreme Court was to decide whether that was a
    lawful sentence within the parameters set by the legislature.
    And it fell within the parameters that were set by the
    Mississippi legislature, and it was a 9-to-0 decision by our
    Supreme Court on that question, whether it was a lawful
    sentence.
        Senator Durbin. The defendant had a wife and three children
    that depended on him, had been staying out of trouble with the
    law for nearly a decade since his prior conviction. The crime
    was victimless, and the facts suggest that his crime was
    accidental and likely caused by a failure in booking
    procedures, and yet you thought 12 years for a misdemeanor was
    warranted?
        Judge Maxwell. Senator, I did not impose my personal
    thoughts about that particular sentence. What I did was follow
    the letter of the law.
        Senator Durbin. But what was the range of sentencing in
    that----
        Judge Maxwell. The range was up to 15 years in prison.
        Senator Durbin. From what low number? 6 years, right?
        Judge Maxwell. I'm not--I don't remember the minimum range.
    We were just looking at----
        Senator Durbin. I think it was 6.
        Judge Maxwell [continuing]. Whether it was within the
    parameters.
        Senator Durbin. Twelve years for possession of a cell
    phone.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And congratulations, gentlemen. I thought I would just
    start down here, and then move this way if thats' okay.
        Judge, what is the rational basis test?
        Judge Chamberlin. Senator, I believe the rational basis
    test is going to be one of your least stringent tests, and
    whether a law has a rational basis for the outcome intended or
    the governmental interest that you're trying to obtain.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. What if the legislature--or the
    Congress, as the case may be--doesn't list a reason? What if
    they just pass the statute?
        Judge Chamberlin. Senator, I would submit that that
    probably happens many times, and I think it's the role of the
    court--when determining such matters as a definition, I think
    it's the role of the court to determine whether the usage of
    that statute--using its wording in plain meaning, whether the
    usage of that statute is going to reach the governmental
    interest that you hope is obvious, but sometimes you have to
    determine.
        Senator Kennedy. So you just create the basis, the reason
    for the statute?
        Judge Chamberlin. I don't think that you create it,
    Senator, but I don't think that most statutes--to be honest, I
    don't think that they tell you what they are trying to
    accomplish so much as they say this is the law. For example,
    possession of a narcotic that's going to say it's illegal to
    possess this. We determine if there's a rational basis that
    forwards the ends of the governmental interest.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, how do you determine if there is a
    rational basis? Do you look at the statute, or do you look
    behind the statute?
        Judge Chamberlin. Well, I think that you always look at the
    statute. Now, I think you also look at any other precedent or
    case law that is interpreted to the statute. However, you look
    to the language of the statute to determine what it does and
    what effect that might have.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Counselor, let's suppose that a
    legislature passes a statute that says if you have a college
    degree or a more advanced degree, you don't have to take a
    driver's license test. And let's assume for a second that the
    Federal court has jurisdiction over a challenge to the
    constitutionality of that statute. What test are you going to
    apply, Counselor?
        Mr. LaCour. Senator, that would be a classification that
    doesn't turn on any sort of protected characteristic, and so it
    would be a rational basis test that would apply in that
    instance.
        Senator Kennedy. You don't see any suspect classification?
        Mr. LaCour. No, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. You don't see any fundamental right?
        Mr. LaCour. No, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. What if the legislature didn't provide--so
    you would use the rational basis test?
        Mr. LaCour. I would, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. And you would uphold that statute?
        Mr. LaCour. I think there could be some rational basis that
    a court could conceive of to justify that statute, and rational
    basis is not----
        Senator Kennedy. So you would invent the rational basis,
    the reason for the statute?
        Mr. LaCour. That's generally how the test has been applied
    by the Supreme Court and by lower courts, and as a district
    court judge, I would be bound by that Supreme Court precedent.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge, tell me the difference, sir,
    between notice pleading and fact pleading?
        Judge Lewis. Notice pleading, of course, goes to your due
    process issues under the 14th Amendment.
        Senator Kennedy. What is the difference between notice
    pleading and fact pleading? We use two systems----
        Judge Lewis. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. In America, as you know.
        Judge Lewis. Yes, sir. Notice pleading is based on--of
    course, that goes under your jurisdiction--your personal
    jurisdiction, and then the fact pleading, of course, goes into
    your subject matter jurisdiction.
        Senator Kennedy. What system does the Federal judiciary
    use, notice or fact?
        Judge Lewis. Fact.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge let me--I am about out of
    time. Can I have 30 more seconds, Madam Chair? You heard me
    talk to the nominee for the Third Circuit about how she would
    interpret the Constitution, and she said that the Constitution
    should be interpreted according to its meaning, as understood
    by the people in America at the time the Constitution was
    passed. Do you agree with that?
        Judge Maxwell. I do, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Let me ask you what I asked her. How
    do you square that with Brown v. Board of Education?
        Judge Maxwell. I would adopt a lot of what she said,
    actually. I believe the 14th Amendment, as it came in, you
    know, addressed a lot of----
        Senator Kennedy. The 14th Amendment was later.
        Judge Maxwell. It was later. It was a----
        Senator Britt. Can you turn your microphone on, please?
    Thank you.
        Judge Maxwell. Sorry about that. I believe Brown v. Board
    of Education is directly decided.
        Senator Kennedy. I do, too, but when my friends--and I am a
    textualist as well, but when my friends say, well, we have to
    interpret the Constitution in accordance with the way the
    average American viewed the Constitution at the time, I say,
    okay, it seems fair to me. Do you think that the average
    American at that time looked at the Constitution and supported
    and believed that it provided for racially integrated schools?
    Do you think that was the majority view at the time?
        Judge Maxwell. Senator, all I know is that Brown v. Board
    of Education is good law, and it was correctly decided.
        Senator Kennedy. And why do you think it was correctly
    decided? I agree with you, but why?
        Judge Maxwell. Well----
        Senator Kennedy. If you interpret the Constitution by
    looking at its public meaning at the time?
        Judge Maxwell. Separate was not--it was inherently unequal,
    not equal----
        Senator Kennedy. It was what?
        Judge Maxwell. I just don't believe that there is a--any
    appetite in this country for any type of du jour type of
    segregation. I believe that that case----
        Senator Kennedy. At the time the Constitution was passed?
        Judge Maxwell. I'm talking about right now. I believe that
    it's good law----
        Senator Kennedy. No, but I mean----
        Judge Maxwell [continuing]. Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. I have gone way, way over. I am
    sorry, Counselor, I didn't get to you.
        Mr. Mooty. No problem, Senator.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Britt. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        Let me follow that line of questioning by asking all of
    you, do you think Brown v. Board of Education was correctly
    decided? We will go right down----
        Judge Chamberlin. Senator, I believe, as a general rule, it
    would be improper of us to comment on the validity or give a
    thumbs up and down to most opinions. However, it's been
    traditional among the nominees that have come before this
    Committee regarding Brown v. Board of Education, and I will
    follow that and State my opinion, which is I believe it was
    correctly decided.
        Senator Blumenthal. You do believe it was correctly
    decided?
        Judge Chamberlin. Yes, sir.
        Mr. LaCour. Senator, I agree with what Justice Chamberlin
    just said. Yes, Brown v. Board was correctly decided.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Judge Lewis. Senator, I am very thankful for Brown v. Board
    of Education. I do believe it was correctly decided.
        Judge Maxwell. Same answer.
        Mr. Mooty. Same, Senator. I do believe Brown v. Board was
    correctly decided.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Let me ask then each of you,
    do you believe that Loving v. Virginia was correctly decided?
        Judge Chamberlin. Senator, I would preface with the same
    comments about commenting on cases, but I think for the same
    reason a moment ago that there are two cases, Brown v. Board of
    Education and Loving v. Virginia that have been commented on
    regularly, and I will maintain that tradition and state I do
    agree with that opinion and believe it was rightfully decided.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Mr. LaCour. Yes, Senator. As a beneficiary of interracial
    marriage, I also agree that Loving v. Virginia was correctly
    decided.
        Judge Lewis. Yes, Senator. I--again, I think there has been
    precedent from prior nominees that those two specific cases we
    are able to comment on, and I do believe it was correctly
    decided.
        Judge Maxwell. Senator, I believe it was correctly decided.
        Mr. Mooty. The same, Senator. I do believe Loving v.
    Virginia was correctly decided.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let's go to another case, Obergefell v.
    Hodges.
        Judge Chamberlin. Senator, as I began a moment ago when you
    asked about Brown v. Board of Education, I would first say it's
    improper to comment on whether these decisions were wise, and
    our opinion as lower court judges below the Supreme Court, of
    course, I think it would be improper for us to comment on that.
    I did make exceptions for two cases because that has been
    traditional before this Committee, but I do have to limit it to
    that and will be unable to respond to the question.
        Senator Blumenthal. So on what basis do you distinguish
    Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia from
    Obergefell? They are both well-established, long-accepted
    precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you think that Loving
    and Brown were correctly decided, but you are unwilling to
    comment on Obergefell?
        Judge Chamberlin. Senator, I simply distinguish those
    because it has been traditional among nominees to respond
    regarding Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I wouldn't say--if I may
    interrupt with all due respect----
        Judge Chamberlin. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I wouldn't say it is
    traditional. I have just been asking this question for the last
    couple of years, and that happens to be the way nominees
    respond. They are willing to comment on Loving and Brown but
    not on Obergefell. We can go on to Griswold. There is no
    tradition here. I am asking you as an individual and a nominee
    for the United States District Court, do you think that
    Obergefell was correctly decided?
        Judge Chamberlin. Well, Senator, as I said a moment ago, it
    is the better practice not to comment on the wisdom or
    correctness of these decisions. As you just stated, it's been
    asked about these cases for a period of time, and I'm merely
    following the line of tradition in answering the cases
    regarding Brown and Loving.
        Senator Blumenthal. So, essentially--and again, I don't
    mean to say this with any disrespect to any of you, you are
    just doing what has worked for the previous nominees?
        Judge Chamberlin. No, sir, I'm just following what they
    have done as I felt those were answers that have been----
        Senator Blumenthal. Okay.
        Judge Chamberlin [continuing]. Acceptable.
        Senator Blumenthal. I will give others the opportunity to
    comment on Obergefell as well.
        Mr. LaCour. Senator, Obergefell is binding precedent of the
    U.S. Supreme Court, and I would apply it faithfully if I am so
    fortunate as to become a Federal District Court judge.
        Senator Blumenthal. Do you think it was correctly decided?
        Mr. LaCour. Senator, just like Justice Kagan and Justice
    Jackson and other nominees who appeared before this court, I
    would not want to be seen as giving a preview as to how I might
    decide any related case, which I think if I were to give a
    thumbs up or thumbs down or otherwise grade the papers of the
    U.S. Supreme Court----
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I am not going to argue with any
    of the nominees, but there is nothing pending right now that
    would involve your, in effect, commenting on something that is
    potentially before a court where you would serve.
        Let me go on to the rest of you and just give you an
    opportunity to respond.
        Judge Lewis. Justice--Senator, my response will echo the
    other two colleagues, but I will say, as a district court, what
    does matter is binding Supreme Court precedent. And as long as
    the Supreme Court precedent--looking at it analytically from a
    legal perspective, it is right. And so as long as that's the
    precedent, then yes, we will follow it.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Judge Maxwell. Senator, it's binding precedent, and I would
    follow it if confirmed to the district court.
        Mr. Mooty. Senator, I agree with my colleagues. I will
    follow all binding Supreme Court precedent, including
    Obergefell, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed to this
    position.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you all for your responses to my
    questions. And thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Britt. Senator Moody.
        Senator Moody. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is fun to say.
    And I apologize for my colleague, Senator Kennedy, who thinks
    he is a law professor during these hearings and launches into
    the Socratic method, probably gave you nightmares and harkened
    back to law school. He indeed takes very seriously this
    Committee's role in making sure we have the highest caliber of
    those that are confirmed for these lifetime posts. So we
    certainly thank the President for nominating such well-
    qualified and hardworking individuals whose accomplishments are
    great, but from what I can tell, your commitment to the
    Constitution and the rule of law may be even greater. And so I
    am very proud to be here today and participate on this
    Committee.
        I have actually, as you can see, I am the newest Member of
    this Committee, but yet I have served in the judiciary as a
    judge and in the other branches of Government. I was a State
    attorney general and a Federal prosecutor at one point, so I
    appreciate the breadth of experience that this panel
    represents. Thank you very much.
        But I am not letting you off the hook, Mooty, and I think
    it is only right, since I am Senator Moody, to question
    Attorney Mooty. One of the biggest threats, I think, right now
    to our republic is the delicate balance of power that we have
    in our three separate branches. And again, having served in
    every branch, I think for the continued strength and prosperity
    of this Nation and the freedom of our people, we have to always
    go back to a very strict respect of the scope of power of each
    of the branches.
        And from Thomas Jefferson to Abraham Lincoln, there has
    always been a concern of judicial tyranny and that if you have
    a judge or a body that is consistently given the task of
    checking the power of the legislative branch or checking the
    power of the executive branch, in turn, that unchecked judicial
    power may evolve into a type of judicial tyranny or oligarchy.
        What concerns me is the increasing perception by the public
    of the judicial branch because I believe the failure of many
    historical Nation States started when people stopped trusting
    the judicial branch, started inferring that the judicial branch
    cared more about policy preferences or political influence than
    they did about reason and analysis.
        And so I think right now, the biggest challenge we face as
    a Nation is the public's perception of this third branch and
    the danger that that presents to what was envisioned for this
    country by our Founders. And we celebrate 250 years next year,
    what our future looks like as a Nation.
        And so you will be given a lifetime appointment. Many have
    gone on to experience that horrible sickness called robe-itis.
    I have seen it many times. But I think where the danger becomes
    is where that overtakes the commitment to go back to what your
    duty is first and foremost as a judge, an independent judge
    with the job of using the Constitution and the law that is
    given to you independently without any bias.
        And so, I would like to hear--and we will start with you,
    Mr. Mooty, and as far as I can get down the line--how do you
    believe your judicial philosophy or your nomination and
    ultimate confirmation will allow us to restore and ensure
    public trust in the judiciary?
        Mr. Mooty. Thank you, Senator. I am fully committed to this
    body to faithfully apply the law of the land, the Constitution,
    and all Federal law faithfully and impartially and treat all
    persons who appear before me with dignity and respect and to
    give each case in controversy, as Article III specifies, the
    attention that it is due.
        And I will add, this body conducted a hearing on the
    judicial branch being the least dangerous branch, as specified
    by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 78. It's only the
    least dangerous branch, Senator, if the judges, if we're
    fortunate enough to be confirmed, remember our role, Senator,
    as one of three separate but equal branches of Government and
    not attempting to legislate from the bench. And I'm committed
    not to do that if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.
        Senator Moody. And I see I am out of time, but I thought it
    was only fitting I started there. Everybody else starts with
    you, you poor thing.
        [Laughter.]
        Madam Chair.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much, Senator Moody.
        And, you know, on that note, I will go ahead and start with
    him as well so that way we can double up.
        Look, each of you have outstanding and unique
    qualifications to serve as Federal judges. Whether it be as
    judges or advocates, each of you bring the necessary and
    important experience to the Federal judiciary.
        Mr. Mooty, I will start with you. Can you speak to what
    experiences you have had over the course of your career that
    make you feel most qualified to serve in the position in which
    you have been nominated? And then we will go all the way down
    to Justice Chamberlin.
        Mr. Mooty. Thank you, Senator. I grew up in the courtroom.
    I was born on my dad's first day of his last semester in law
    school. I remember watching him try cases at a very young age.
    I remember working as a runner in his law firm and deciding I
    wanted to be not just a lawyer but a litigator in the courtroom
    at a very young age. And after 17 years in private practice and
    trying cases in Federal and State courts, appearing in Federal
    and State courts across the country, I feel like I was born to
    do this, Senator, and serve the public and my country in a
    manner that I feel like God has set me on a path to be back in
    the courtroom but for a lifetime appointment serving the public
    in a country that's given me so much, Senator. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        Judge Maxwell. Senator, to echo Mr. Mooty's comments, I was
    also raised by a lawyer, and he taught me at an early age the
    important aspects of justice. I said riding to schools those
    mornings, we were listening to trial lawyers lecture, and I've
    taken that with me. I've been very blessed to have my own legal
    career kind of based on his shoulders.
        For the past 16 years, I've served as a judge on our
    State's highest courts, and I've had the ability to decide
    basically every aspect of criminal and civil case. I've been
    around some excellent mentors on both the State Supreme Court
    and the Court of Appeals. But to truly get down to answer your
    question, what kind of separates me and uniquely qualifies me
    to serve in this role is the fact that I have been a Federal
    prosecutor in the Northern District of Mississippi, and it's
    where I got--it's where I cut my teeth as a lawyer. I learned a
    lot of lessons from the judges there, some tremendous judges,
    Neal Biggers, Allen Pepper, Glen Davidson, Mike Mills. I
    learned lessons and also took a lot of lumps, and that is a
    part of the experience.
        We've heard a lot of questions about policy, about the
    Constitution, but what it gets down to as a judge is when you
    walk in that courtroom, can you not only call balls and strikes
    like we have always heard the analogy from Chief Justice
    Roberts, but can you have a consistent strike zone for all the
    parties? What's a strike for one lawyer or one party can't be a
    ball for another. And I can submit to this Committee that if
    I'm confirmed to this position, it would be like coming home to
    that Federal family in the Northern District of Mississippi.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. Justice Lewis.
        Judge Lewis. Senator, I come from a background where I was
    the first person in my family to graduate from college. We came
    from a meager background. And when I go to court, especially in
    the early years of my legal profession, I saw myself in a lot
    of clients that came through there, not necessarily the
    criminal ones, but just in general. And that's one of the
    things that really has shaped my legal career. I believe that--
    and my judicial philosophy. I believe that everybody that comes
    into that court deserves to have their voice heard, regardless
    of where they are on the issues, regardless of where they come
    from, regardless of what they look like, regardless of who they
    are.
        I was pretty much--I pretty much spent just about every
    minute of my legal career as an attorney in the courtroom. I
    practiced in civil litigation. I practiced in criminal
    litigation. I practiced as a prosecutor, a defense attorney. I
    handled civil rights cases. I handled civil cases. I've
    practiced in three States. And so I've got a broad background
    that I bring with me to this potential judgeship.
        But then also, those experiences as a lawyer factored into
    the way I handled myself and carried myself as a judge. As a
    circuit judge, my circuit was one of the busiest circuits in
    the State of Alabama. I handled pretty much more cases in my
    circuit as any circuit judge in the State based on our
    caseload. And what that taught me was to manage dockets
    efficiently but also to make sure that everybody did have their
    voice heard.
        When I went to the appellate level, it was much different
    because then I was in a position where I was able to be
    analytical. I was able to research cases. It also gave me the
    opportunity to see how other judges in the State did things,
    what worked, what didn't, and how they treated people as well.
        And then when I became a supreme court justice, the focus
    shifted. Of course, I was still working on trying to get a
    consensus. As a trial court judge, what I say goes, and if you
    don't like it, appeal, right? But then as a--as an appellate
    judge, you've got to get a consensus. You've got to get other
    folks to gravitate to your issues. At least you have to try to.
    And that helped hone my skills in being analytical with legal
    arguments and things of that nature.
        And also, as a supreme court justice, we're dealing more
    with State and even to an extent Federal policy. And so I have
    a broad background on every level of the legal profession, and
    I believe that will be very beneficial if I am to be confirmed
    as a judicial nominee.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. Mr. LaCour.
        Mr. LaCour. Thank you, Senator Britt. I've been fortunate
    in my career to get to cover a broad array of legal issues in a
    broad array of venues from the Northern District of California
    to the Southern District of New York, from the Middle and
    Northern Districts of Alabama all the way up to the U.S.
    Supreme Court, litigating nearly every one of the Bill of
    Rights and many other issues as well. And I think that's given
    me a good experience in terms of being able to get a new issue,
    get up to speed quickly, try to get the right answer, and then
    move on, and I think that's a really important skill for a
    judge to have, to be able to master an area of the law quickly
    so they can provide justice both by getting to the answer that
    the law demands but also getting an answer to the parties
    before you quickly so they can either appeal or move on with
    their lives. And so that's something that I hope to be able to
    bring is a degree of skill and a lot of hard work to the bench
    if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. Justice Chamberlin.
        Judge Chamberlin. Senator, first, I hope I'm not out of
    line if I correct a terrible omission from earlier today. I did
    not mention my father, who passed away in December, and his
    91st birthday would have been on Labor Day. He would have been
    so proud today.
        Senator Britt. Certainly.
        Judge Chamberlin. To answer your question, I did not grow
    up the child of a lawyer. My father was a truck driver. My
    mother worked an assembly line. My earliest legal influences
    were Perry Mason and Ben Matlock.
        Senator Britt. I like it.
        Judge Chamberlin. But my father and mother instilled a
    sense of the necessity of education in us, and I'm happy to
    have obviously obtained a law degree.
        My experience that most prepares me for this job is that I
    served 12 years as a circuit court judge. That's a trial judge
    level for the State courts in the State of Mississippi. I've
    run a courtroom. I've run a docket. I know the appropriate
    judicial temperament. I know the appropriate judicial demeanor,
    and I would hope to be able to bring those to the job if I'm
    fortunate enough to be confirmed.
        Senator Britt. Thank you very much.
        I am out of time, but the beauty of being the Chair is you
    get to take more time. So I'm going to come right back across
    just very quickly if you don't mind answering, what qualities
    do you have that you find important for a Federal judge to
    aspire to and that you hope to emulate on the Federal bench?
    And many of you may have referenced this in your previous
    answer, which is fine for you to reference back to that. But we
    will start with you, Justice Chamberlin.
        Judge Chamberlin. As a U.S. district court judge nominee
    and for a U.S. district court position, first would be with any
    judicial position, integrity. I think integrity is about as
    important as it gets, of course a dedication to the law, and an
    appropriate--for reasons I did just mention, appropriate
    judicial demeanor and appropriate judicial temperament.
        Senator Britt. Excellent. Mr. LaCour.
        Mr. LaCour. So I'd like to think that I've learned from my
    former boss, Chief Judge Pryor, the value of, as I mentioned
    before, hard work. He recently served--or was commemorated for
    serving 20 years on the 11th Circuit, and several of his
    colleagues had commented in the Alabama Law Review that there
    were few judges as hardworking as him. He's well known as a
    sharp legal analyst, and I hope I can be the same. But in terms
    of just getting opinions out the door and getting justice to
    the parties is something that I've admired and hope to emulate.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. Justice Lewis.
        Judge Lewis. Yes, Senator. Work ethic and integrity is what
    I think is the primary characteristic of a judge. I believe
    that my long legal career has taught me that most people,
    regardless of where they are on the issue, when they leave a
    courtroom, it's my job as a judge to make sure that they know
    that the system has worked, maybe not in their favor, but in
    the fact that they have had their day in court, have had their
    say, and feel like the system is working for them.
        And I think Senator Moody touched on it a little bit, the
    perception of the judiciary is in a State that concerns me, and
    I believe that, as a district judge, it's our role as being
    the--on the Federal level that has the most access to the
    public to instill that confidence in everyone that this system
    works for everyone, whether it be a traffic ticket or a capital
    murder litigation, which I've been involved in on numerous
    occasions as well, at the end of the day, that person needs to
    feel like the system is there to hear them and make them feel
    like they are a part of this country.
        Senator Britt. Justice Maxwell.
        Judge Maxwell. Senator, I believe that integrity is
    paramount. Respect for the litigants before you is extremely
    important. And another quality that hasn't been mentioned yet
    is courage. Judges have to have the courage to make difficult
    decisions. You can't just put your, you know, finger in the air
    and check the pulse of what's going out there with your
    constituents because we only really have one constituent, and
    that is to the law, maybe, too, to the Constitution of the
    United States. And judges cannot push the law where they want
    it to go, or we all get to the wrong place. We have to follow
    the law, and if we do that, everyone in this room is going to
    end up in the right place.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. And the last word of the day to
    Mr. Mooty.
        Mr. Mooty. Thank you, Senator. My colleagues have given
    excellent answers to this question, and I don't want to repeat
    any of their attributes, so to give a different one while
    adopting all of theirs, preparedness, Senator. I've practiced
    for long enough to know that a lawyer and their client can tell
    when a judge is not prepared for a hearing or for a trial or
    for an appearance. I've learned from a lot of great mentors,
    know what you can control. And I teach my young litigation
    associates that you can control your level of preparedness when
    you walk into a courtroom, and that's something that I've tried
    to do every single time I set foot in the courtroom is make
    sure I'm the most prepared. I would take that to the bench,
    Senator, and instill a level of confidence not just with the
    lawyers but with the parties themselves. This judge is
    prepared, and the preparedness shows respect, and the
    preparedness shows integrity, Senator. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Thank you so much, Mr. Mooty.
        Well, thank you all for your time today. Congratulations on
    your nomination. Congratulations to your families. We are
    thrilled to have each and every one of you here with us. Thank
    you to the nominees, obviously, for your testimony today.
        Written questions for the record may be submitted up until
    September 10 at 5 p.m., of which the quicker you get back your
    answers, the faster we get to have an opportunity to put that
    before the full Committee.
        And with that, thank you again, and this hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:14 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-119shrg61890/pdf/CHRG-
        119shrg
        61890-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:

     Alliance for Justice, Opposition to Chamberlin, letter...........     2

     Alliance for Justice, Opposition to LaCour, letter...............     4

     Alliance for Justice, Opposition to Mascott, letter..............     6

     National Women's Law Center, Opposition to Mascott (NWLC), letter     9

     People For the American Way (PFAW), Opposition to LaCour, letter.    17

     People For the American Way (PFAW), Opposition to Mascott, letter    21

                                     [all]