[Senate Hearing 119-313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-313
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 19, 2025
__________
Serial No. J-119-50
__________
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
62-970 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
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 2
Cornyn, Hon. John................................................ 5
Cruz, Hon. Ted................................................... 1
VISITING INTRODUCERS
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 6
Cotton, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas........ 6
Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from Alaska..................... 4
NOMINEES
Fowlkes, David Clay.............................................. 7
Questionnaire................................................ 30
Responses to written questions............................... 58
Ganjei, Nicholas Jon............................................. 9
Questionnaire................................................ 99
Responses to written questions............................... 164
Additional materials......................................... 215
Peterson, Aaron Christian........................................ 9
Questionnaire................................................ 225
Responses to written questions............................... 258
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2025
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Cornyn, Cruz,
Hawley, Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt, Moody,
Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Hirono, and Schiff.
Also present: Senators Boozman, Cotton and Sullivan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Good morning. The Senate Judiciary Committee
is called to order. Welcome to everyone. Today, we welcome a
panel of three nominees: Mr. Nicholas Ganjei, Mr. Aaron
Peterson, and Mr. David Fowlkes. I want to thank each of you
for your willingness to serve, and I welcome your families who
are here in support.
We are participating in a process with a storied history.
Under the Senate's earliest rules, the Judiciary Committee has
stood as one of the three original Committees of the U.S.
Senate. For more than 150 years, this Committee has held
nomination hearings, upholding a tradition that reaches far
beyond any single nominee. These proceedings represent the
solemn duty entrusted to this Committee, to safeguard the
integrity of the Federal Judiciary, an institution that remains
the backbone of our constitutional republic. For more than 2
centuries, our courts have served as a stabilizing force in
American life. They have defended liberty in times of crisis,
checked overreach in moments of political passion, and upheld
the rule of law when it was least popular to do so. And today,
under President Trump, we are witnessing a welcomed return to
that tradition, a return to judges who read the law, who
respect the separation of powers, and who understand that the
judiciary is not a political weapon, but rather, a
constitutional trust.
We need to renew our constitutional heritage. Even now,
some courts continue to stretch beyond their constitutional
role, issuing sweeping injunctions, expanding statutes past
their text, and inserting ideology into matters reserved for
the elected branches. Through the nomination of rule-of-law
judges, we are restoring courts to their rightful place,
interpreting the law as written, not as wished, and that return
to constitutional values shows the character and caliber of the
nominees coming before this Committee. We see men and women who
have dedicated their lives to the rule of law, who have
prosecuted criminals, defended communities, and shown, through
years of public service, that fidelity to the Constitution is
not an abstract promise, but, rather, a lived commitment, which
brings me to introduce the first nominee on today's panel,
Nicholas Ganjei.
Nick is exactly the kind of nominee who reflects the best
of this moment. Nick has spent nearly 20 years on the front
lines of Federal law enforcement. He has prosecuted cartel
traffickers, violent offenders, predators of children, human
smugglers, and corrupt actors who have threatened our
communities. He has tried cases, overseen offices, managed
teams, and now, as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District
of Texas, he leads one of the busiest, most consequential U.S.
attorney offices in the Nation. His record is enormous in scope
and unmistakable in character. Under his leadership, Federal
prosecutors in Houston and across South Texas have dismantled
transnational criminal organizations, stopped human trafficking
pipelines, taken down large-scale drug rings, and protected
children from predation. He has enforced immigration law
faithfully in a district where more than 70 percent of Federal
sentencing matters involve immigration offenses. He has done
the work quietly, diligently, professionally that keeps
Americans safe.
He has also served this body dutifully and patriotically.
Indeed, Nick's one failing is his choice for whom to work, and
for 3 years, Nick was my chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary
Committee. I hope this Committee will forgive him that
momentary lapse in judgment, but I can tell you, in that role,
I saw firsthand the qualities that define him, exceptional
judgment, deep integrity, respect for the Constitution, and
humility in the exercise of public power. He was a leader on
criminal justice issues, on border security, on judicial
nominations, and on some of the most complex matters that come
before this Committee. I trusted his counsel then, and I trust
his character now.
President Trump nominated Nick because he embodies the
traits we should demand from every Federal judge, seriousness,
independence, commitment to the rule of law, and a lifetime of
service and dedication to the American people. I have every
confidence that he will serve the Southern District with honor,
and I wholeheartedly support his nomination. And with that, I
recognize Ranking Member Durbin for his opening remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Cruz, and
congratulations to the nominees, their families, and friends
who have gathered here today. We have three district court
nominees before the Committee. I want to apologize in advance
that I have a meeting with the leadership at 10:30, so I have
to step out. I hope I can return and personally ask my
questions at that time.
I want to raise an issue that doesn't relate exclusively to
these nominees but, basically, all the Members of the
Judiciary. The job of a district court judge is not an easy
task. The dockets are busy, the questions of law are
complicated, but more recently, and especially this year, the
work has become even more difficult as jurors across the
country face increasing personal attacks and even threats of
violence. The uptick in threats is not random. The attacks
against individual judges by this administration and their
passionate followers have well been recorded.
In March, the President demanded the impeachment of a
Federal judge simply for ruling against the administration. The
President called the judge ``A Radical Left Lunatic, a
troublemaker and agitator.'' The President added, ``This judge,
like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before,
should be IMPEACHED.'' The President is not the only member of
this administration to use this kind of inflammatory language.
Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, a
former personal lawyer of the President, told the Federalist
Society the administration is engaged in ``a war'' against
``rogue activist judges.'' When the deputy attorney general
refers to litigation involving the Government as a war, you can
understand how the President's supporters might consider
threats and violence as a natural next step.
Just last month, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff,
Stephen Miller, referred to a district judge court's order
blocking the Trump administration's deployment of the National
Guard as ``legal insurrection.'' Mr. Miller claimed that the
so-called left-wing terrorism is ``shielded by far-left
Democratic judges, prosecutors, and attorneys general. The
President who is nominated, who was nominated--his record
should be explained.'' Taking this criticism from the White
House is hard to imagine, but this was a judge that was
actually chosen by President Trump in his first term.
MAGA loyalists in Congress have eagerly piled on. So far
this year, Republican Congressmen have filed impeachment
resolutions against at least eight district court judges for
high crimes and misdemeanors, and the crime they are accused
of? Disagreeing with the President. In response to this
unprecedented attack on the judiciary, Chief Justice John
Roberts issued a rare statement. ``For more than 2 centuries,
it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate
response to disagreement concerning judicial decisions. The
normal appellate review process was made for that purpose.'' As
a result of the surge in threats, many judges now require
additional security, including many judges in my home State of
Illinois. The administration's unlawful immigration raids in
Chicago have led to numerous lawsuits and controversial
decisions. This litigation, in turn, has led to a rise in
threats against several judges who actually handle these cases.
As I've said many times before and will repeat each time given
an opportunity, violence or threats of violence, whether from
the right or the left of the political spectrum, are never,
ever acceptable.
I would like to quote from a recent statement by the
Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, a nonpartisan
organization. The statement reads, ``Expressions of public
sentiment, whether criticism or praise, are not threats to
judicial independence. Recent threats of violence directed at
Chicago Federal judges for simply doing their job, however, are
unacceptable and have no place in our discourse.'' I couldn't
agree more. More than 6 months ago I asked the Justice
Department for a briefing on the Marshal Service efforts to
protect our judges. I'm still waiting for that to take place.
It should be a priority of this Committee. The threats and
challenges our Federal judges face grow worse every day. Let's
do something about it on the Judiciary Committee. I yield, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Thank you. Now, in this
order because Senator Sullivan and Senator Cornyn have other
engagements, I'm going to call on Senator Sullivan first.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Durbin, and my Senate colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.
It's an honor to be here today to introduce a distinguished
Alaskan before this Committee, Aaron Peterson, who has been
nominated by President Trump to serve as a judge on the United
States District Court for the District of Alaska.
As you all know, the vetting process for a Federal judge is
rigorous and time consuming, as it should be, and I want to
thank Aaron and his family for their patience as this process
has moved forward. As part of this nominating process, Aaron
was interviewed by the Alaska Federal Judiciary Council, a
bipartisan group of Alaskans who volunteer their time to
interview Federal judge candidates. The recent controversy
about a Federal judge in Alaska, who was not my first choice
and ended up being a real disgrace to Alaska and the Federal
judiciary, made it clear to me that we needed a much better
vetting system in Alaska for Federal judges, so I established
the Alaska Federal Judiciary Council. Aaron is the first
nominee who was interviewed by that Council, and I convened
this, as I mentioned, for better vetting, and I actually took
some advice from our Senators from Texas and Senator Durbin who
have similar Committees to nominate quality candidates. I know
that this Alaska Federal Judiciary Council process will improve
the selection of Alaska judicial candidates, and I want to
publicly thank all the Members of the Council who put time and
effort into over the last year.
When I first met Aaron, I was impressed by his integrity,
his respect for the rule of law, and his deep commitment to
public service, which also includes military service. Alaska
has more veterans per capita than any other State in the
country, and Aaron is one of those proud Alaska veterans. He
served in security forces in the U.S. Air Force after 9-11,
deploying in the Middle East and around the globe to protect
airfields and airmen. His legal experience is broad and deep
and Alaska focused. After receiving his juris doctorate from
Gonzaga University School of Law, he came back home to serve as
a law clerk for Alaska Superior Court Judge, Michael Spaan. He
went on to serve as an assistant district attorney for the
Anchorage District Attorney's Office where he prosecuted
serious criminal cases, including homicides and sex crimes.
Alaska is a great State and my colleagues have heard me brag
about it many, many times, but one thing we are not proud of in
our State is our very high rates of sexual assault and domestic
violence. It's a scourge on our State. Aaron's experience in
prosecuting these cases and working closely with victims will
be a huge asset to the Federal court in Alaska.
Alaska is a unique State with many Federal laws that
specifically focus on our uniqueness: the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
Authorization Act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. These are
massive, complex laws exclusively focused on Alaska. Even more
recent laws, like the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the 2020
CARES Act, and the recent budget reconciliation bill signed
into law by President Trump in July, have entire sections in
the Federal law focused on Alaska. All of these laws have
significant and important promises and commitments made by the
Congress to Alaskans and our Alaska Native people, but what has
been a pattern for decades is that Federal agencies charged
with carrying out these laws often ignore these commitments to
Alaskans. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said it recently
and best in the two recent cases before the Supreme Court
called Sturgeon I and Sturgeon II. Both were decided 9-to-0 by
the U.S. Supreme Court in Alaska's favor in analyzing ANILCA
and ANCSA, the statutes I just cited above. Justice Kagan
concluded: ``ANILCA and other Federal laws reflect the simple
truth that Alaska is often the exception, not the rule, and is
very different from the rest of the country in terms of laws.''
For a Federal judge in Alaska, it' is imperative that he or
she have a deep understanding of these Federal laws and their
application. Aaron definitely does. He has been an assistant
attorney general in both the Civil and Criminal Divisions in
the Department of Law for over 10 years. He is currently the
senior assistant attorney general in the Natural Resources
Section of the Alaska Department of Law. He is the primary
litigation counsel on anything to do from fisheries, water
rights, and access to Federal lands. Aaron is a lifelong
Alaskan. He knows and understands our great State and the
Federal laws that reflect on Alaska. I think he will be a great
Federal judge. I urge his nomination be sent to the Senate
floor with positive votes from all the Members of this
Committee. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to
introduce Aaron.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Now Senator
Cornyn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's hard to
improve on Senator Cruz's introduction of Nick Ganjei, but I'm
going to say a few nice words about him.
First of all, congratulations, Nick, to you and your
family. I know they are very proud of this great day. I'm
always happy to see more Texans represented on the Federal
bench, and, as Senator Cruz pointed out, Mr. Ganjei is a highly
accomplished lawyer, having served as a Federal prosecutor in
multiple districts, including as interim U.S. attorney in the
Southern District of Texas, the district into which now he will
be an Article III judge after his confirmation. During his time
as a prosecutor, he worked on important topics, like stemming
the tide of illegal immigration, combating human trafficking
and drug trafficking, and protecting children from malicious
offenders.
His impressive legal credentials, paired with his extensive
experience as a prosecutor and his longstanding dedication to
advancing the rule of law in Texas and around the country,
making him an excellent addition to the Federal bench. So,
again, Nick, congratulations on your nomination. I look forward
to supporting your confirmation both here and on the floor of
the U.S. Senate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Now Senator
Boozman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Senator
Durbin, for holding this very important hearing today, and good
morning to my distinguished colleagues that serve on this
difficult Committee. It's an honor to be here with my friend
and colleague from the State of Arkansas, Senator Tom Cotton,
to introduce President Trump's nominee to serve as judge on the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas. I would also like to say hello to his family and
friends who are in attendance to support him, and we're very
happy to have them.
A native of Harrison, Arkansas, Clay is a graduate of
Arkansas State University and the University of Arkansas Law
School. After graduating, Clay served as a deputy prosecuting
attorney for Benton County where his work ethic and leadership
elevated him to division chief. He then transitioned to the
U.S. Attorney's Office of the Western District of Arkansas and
has almost 2 decades there marked by extensive and impressive
accomplishments. His experience at the U.S. Attorney's office
includes stints as an assistant United States attorney, rising
to deputy criminal chief, and then criminal chief, then as
first assistant United States attorney, and eventually serving
as the United States attorney since January 2020.
Throughout his career, Clay has earned the respect of his
colleagues, law enforcement partners, and the communities he
has served for his integrity, his professionalism, and
leadership. He has built a reputation as a principled
prosecutor who approaches every case with steady judgment,
fairness, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law. I know
he will approach each case put before him with the same
dedication and intellect that he has demonstrated throughout
his career. His expertise and temperament will undoubtedly
serve him well as a judge, which is why Senator Cotton and I
applaud President Trump for selecting him to fill this post.
It's clear he's not only qualified, but extremely well suited
for the role. I strongly support his nomination and urge my
colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Boozman. Now Senator
Cotton.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COTTON,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Cotton. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Senator
Durbin, and Members of the Judiciary Committee. Good morning.
I'm pleased to join Senator Boozman today to introduce a civil
servant and a fellow Arkansan, Mr. David Clay Fowlkes. I'd
first like to thank Clay for his many years of public service
and for agreeing to continue this service as the President's
nominee to be a United States district judge for the Western
District of Arkansas. I would also like to thank his family who
are joining him here today, and thank them for their support
and encouragement throughout this process.
As an accomplished prosecutor with experience handling
cases ranging from misdemeanors to murders, Clay has a lengthy
track record that underscores his respect for the rule of law.
Upon graduating from the University of Arkansas School of Law
and after serving in the Benton County Prosecuting Attorney's
Office, he began working at the United States Attorney's Office
in the Western District. Clay has spent nearly 2 decades in
this U.S. Attorney's Office, serving as the assistant U.S.
attorney, the criminal chief, and now as the U.S. attorney for
the Western District.
Under his leadership, the office has prioritized safety and
law enforcement. Specifically, Clay has started a response
team, alongside Federal and State agents, to curb fentanyl
distribution, investigate every drug poisoning death, and hold
drug dealers accountable. In addition to his efforts to crack
down on illicit drug trafficking, Clay has also placed special
emphasis on keeping kids safe and allowing them to live their
childhoods to the fullest. Thanks to his leadership and
efforts, his office has prosecuted more than 3 times the
national average of child abuse and exploitation cases. Clay
has also been recognized with numerous awards for his
accomplishments throughout his career. These include the Hope
Coalition Excellence in Law Enforcement Award and a recognition
from the DEA for outstanding efforts in drug trafficking
prosecutions.
Again, I'd like to thank him for his many years of working
to get criminals off the streets and to keep Arkansas
communities safe. I strongly support his nomination to be the
next United States district judge for the Western District of
Arkansas, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank
you.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Cotton. Now will the
three nominees please come to the table, and before you sit
down, I would like to have you repeat the oath. Okay. Are you
ready?
Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before
the Committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but
the truth so help you God?
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chairman Grassley. Each of you've answered in the
affirmative. Thank you.
Now, we'll start with Mr. Fowlkes. Please sit down. This is
your opportunity to speak, anything you want to say to the
Committee, but also your opportunity to introduce family and
friends, whatever the case might be, in your respective roles.
So, proceed, Mr. Fowlkes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID CLAY FOWLKES, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Fowlkes. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. As you've heard,
my name is Clay Fowlkes. I'm currently serving as the United
States attorney in the Western District of Arkansas. I want to
begin by thanking the Committee for your time and attention to
this matter today. Thank you especially to Senator Grassley and
Ranking Member Durbin, but thank you to every Member of the
Committee for your attention today and for the opportunity to
speak to you here today.
I want to also thank President Trump for this nomination.
This is not only the honor of my lifetime to be nominated for
this and the highest honor of my career, but it also exceeds my
wildest expectations for my career and for my life, and I'm
deeply grateful and thankful to President Trump for his support
and for his nomination. I want to also thank Senator Boozman
and Senator Cotton for their kind words of introduction and for
their support for this nomination and throughout this process.
I also want to thank them and give them my deepest gratitude
for their commitment to making Arkansas a better place for our
citizens.
Before I begin with introducing my family, I also want to
take a moment and thank God for this opportunity as well.
There's no question in my mind that I would not be here today
speaking with this distinguished Committee if it weren't for
his strong hand of intervention my behalf. As it says in John
3:27, ``Man can receive not even one thing unless it's given to
him from heaven,'' and I'm so grateful for his blessings. I'm
also so thankful that my family is able to join me here today.
I'm joined by my wonderful, beautiful wife of 23 years, Brianne
Fowlkes. Not only has she done an amazing job raising our
family, but she also is a very skilled and talented registered
nurse and works at a hospital in Northwest Arkansas. Her skills
as a nurse are only surpassed by her skills as a mom, and God
has blessed us with three amazing children who I'm also proud
to say are joining us here today. My son, Wit, is 17, and our
twins, Adelynn and Asher, are both 12. They all three exceed at
academics and sports and playing in the band back home in
Western Arkansas.
I'm also joined by my parents today, David and Karen Sue
Fowlkes, both of Jonesboro, Arkansas. I'm so grateful that they
are here today to support me, but I'm also grateful for the
many sacrifices that they made for my sister and I in raising
us. They were careful to raise us according to God's word and
his will, but they also instilled in both my sister and I a
strong work ethic from a very young age, and I'm so thankful
for both of them. My dad retired after 40 years of service with
the United States Army and the United States Department of
Agriculture. Senator Grassley, he'd be happy to talk to you
about soybeans and corn anytime, and so I'm so grateful that
they are here today in support of this.
I'm also very blessed to have the most amazing in-laws, who
are also here to support me today, Danny and Linda Pridmore
from Jonesboro, Arkansas. I'm so grateful for their unending
support of our family and so thankful that they are here today.
I see that Senator Kennedy has stepped out, but they both read
Senator Kennedy's book and are enormous admirers of his,
despite the Arkansas-Louisiana rivalry. I'm also joined by
several friends here in the audience today and other family
members, and I'm so grateful for all of them for their support.
I'm also incredibly grateful for the many friends and family
members back home in Western Arkansas who are praying for me
this morning and have expressed their support for me.
I want to end by just saying that I'm incredibly grateful
for the men and women of the United States Attorney's Office in
Western Arkansas. It's my honor and privilege to serve
alongside them. I try to begin every day with the goal of
thinking about what can I do today to make Arkansas a better
and a safer place for our citizens, and I know that every
member of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Western Arkansas shares
that goal and shares the commitment that they have expressed
over and over again to making Arkansas a better and a safer
place. I'm so grateful to them for their support and to be able
to serve alongside them. Thank you, Senator Grassley.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you Mr. Fowlkes. Now Mr. Ganjei.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS JON GANJEI, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Mr. Ganjei. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member
Durbin, for scheduling this hearing this morning. Of course, I
would like to thank President Trump for the great honor of this
nomination, but I'd also like to thank Senator Cruz and Cornyn
for their very generous introductions and thank them both for
their recommendation of me to the White House, as well as their
support throughout the confirmation process.
Sixty-four years ago, my father came to this country with
nothing but his life savings of $100 and a deep abiding faith
in the American Dream. He started off working as a busboy and,
later, hand drying cars at a carwash. He eventually moved West
where he met my mother, herself the child of immigrants,
growing up without hot water or indoor plumbing in a dusty
Wyoming mining town. They are both here this morning. Today,
just one generation later, their son sits before the world's
greatest deliberative body being considered for a lifetime
appointment to the Federal bench. In very few countries would
something like this be possible, and nowhere else but America
would something like this be a common occurrence. This country
has given me and my family the gift of incalculable value, and
I've sought to repay this debt, to the extent it can be repaid,
through a lifetime of public service, the next chapter of which
will hopefully be as a United States district court judge.
Thank you for your time. I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to speak to you this morning and look forward to
answering your questions.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now Mr. Peterson.
STATEMENT OF AARON CHRISTIAN PETERSON, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
Mr. Peterson. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin,
Members of the Committee, thank you for scheduling this
hearing. I am thrilled to be here. I want to thank President
Trump for giving me the honor of this nomination. It truly is
the professional honor of a lifetime, and I want to thank
Senator Sullivan both for his support throughout this process
and for that very kind introduction. I'd also like to thank
Senator Murkowski for her support during this process.
I want to recognize some of the people who have traveled
here to support me, first and foremost, my brilliant and
beautiful wife, Kadra. We've been married over 21 years, and
she's been with me every step of the way. I definitely would
not be anywhere near this opportunity without her unwavering
love, patience, and support. She's supported me throughout my
career while pursuing her own very demanding careers as a math
teacher and as a mother to our three children, our 12-year-old
daughter and our 9-year-old twins. I want to thank her for all
the sacrifices that she has made to make this a possibility.
And I also want to thank Kadra's sister, Reagan, for watching
our kids while we're here. Good luck, Reagan.
My father also traveled here from Alaska, and he wouldn't
have missed this. He's been at every important life event for
all of his children and his grandchildren. My father moved to
Alaska from Southern California in 1975. He planned to stay for
a few months and have an adventure, and he's been there for 50
years. And fortunately, my mother agreed to go to Alaska with
him also from Southern California, and I thank God every day
that they chose to live there and that I got to be born and
raised in the Last Frontier. Unfortunately, my mother couldn't
travel here today, but I know she's extremely proud watching
back home in Eagle River. My sister, Lindsey, also came here
and is at the hearing, and my uncle, U.S. Army Lieutenant
Colonel, retired, Larry Peterson is also here.
On a professional level, I want to thank Judge Michael
Spaan, for whom I had the privilege of clerking. Judge Spaan,
it was truly an honor and it was a pleasure to work for him.
When I told him I was thinking about this opportunity, he had
been the U.S. attorney for many years in Alaska and he
encouraged me, and I want to thank him for that encouragement.
Judge Spaan approached his work diligently with humility and
always respecting every litigant that appeared before him. I
took so much away from that clerkship, and I've carried those
lessons with me every day since.
And finally, I want to thank Attorney General Steve Cox and
all of the fantastic people that I've had the pleasure to work
with over the years at the Alaska Department of Law. It has
been an honor and a pleasure to serve my home State alongside
all of those extremely dedicated public servants. I welcome the
Committee's questions.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now we'll have questions, and
I'll start out, and I'm going to start with you, Mr. Ganjei.
The Committee has received multiple letters from criminal
defense and civil rights attorneys who's litigated against you.
Each of them praised your professionalism and the fidelity to
the law. Several Members of this Committee and their staffs
have also worked with you during your time on Senator Cruz's
chief counsel, both as a prosecutor and as a Senate staffer.
You've had to work with people who disagreed with you to serve
the American people. So, this may seem like a softball
question, but your answer will kinda tell us how you will
approach it as a person with a robe. What lessons will you take
from these experiences to the bench?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think the single most important
thing in the way that the court treats any litigant is to treat
them with respect, not only treat them with personal respect,
but let them understand that you're taking their case
seriously. I think it's tempting to treat a case maybe as a
routine matter. You see, you know, hundreds of these, you know,
this specific type of case a year, but to the litigants in
front of you, it's the single most important case of their
life. And so, if fortunate enough to be confirmed as a district
judge, I would approach each legal dispute with care, with
attention, and I want everyone to walk out of that courtroom,
they may not win, but they would feel that they have been given
their day in court.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now to Mr. Fowlkes. You've
had a long career as a local and Federal prosecutor, even
including being a U.S. attorney. You've received many awards
for your service, and you've tried over 20 cases to verdict,
I've been told. Can you explain your judicial philosophy and
how your experience as a prosecutor has prepared you to serve
as a judge?
Mr. Fowlkes. Thank you, Senator. My experience as a
prosecutor has meant everything in preparation for this moment.
I have learned deep and lasting lessons from every single judge
that I was able to practice in front of, from meticulous
preparation, to understanding the case and the law, to treating
parties with respect at every opportunity, and I have learned
something from every single judge that I have tried cases in
front of or practice in front of that I would intend to take
with me and further my career, if I'm fortunate enough to be
confirmed by the Senate. As far as my judicial philosophy, I
agree with what my colleague, Mr. Ganjei, said. It is so
important for a judge to be the most prepared individual in the
courtroom, and it's so important for a judge to correctly
identify the applicable law and to correctly find the proper
facts and the true facts, apply the law to those facts, and
make a decision that is independent and that is fair and just,
and that demonstrates deep respect for the law. And I think
that would be the judicial philosophy that I've learned
throughout my career as a prosecutor that I would take with me
to the bench.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you.
Mr. Fowlkes. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Grassley. Now to Mr. Peterson. You've spent nearly
15 years in public service at the Alaska Department of Law. You
now serve as assistant attorney general in the Natural Resource
Section. Please tell us how your career has prepared you for
the unique type of cases that you would preside over as a
Federal judge in Alaska.
Mr. Peterson. Well, Chairman Grassley, as Senator Sullivan
mentioned, Alaska has many Federal statutes that are specific
to Alaska. They're large, important pieces of legislation that
are critical to the success of Alaska, and one of those that he
mentioned was the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act. I've litigated that act specifically for several years.
I've a deep familiarity with the laws that are specific to
Alaska and that are unique and come before district judges in
Alaska, and where really nobody else in the country would have
any reason to know much about them. So, the deep familiarity
that I have with those laws, with my history of litigating
them, I think, prepared me for many of the cases that will come
before the district court and also my career as a prosecutor.
I traveled all across Alaska prosecuting cases, serious
felonies in Anchorage and cases all across the State, from
Juneau, to Dutch Harbor, to Kenai, to Delta Junction, even
appearing in Utqiagvik on the Arctic Ocean for a sentencing
hearing. So, I have a wide cross-section of experience in the
arenas that are likely to come before the district court, and,
hopefully, I'll be able to preside over those matters if I'm
fortunate enough to be confirmed.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you all very much. Now Senator
Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to each of
you and to your families. Good morning.
I ask the following two initial questions of all nominees
who come before any of the Committees on which I sit relevant
to the fitness to serve, so I'll ask these questions, and I'd
like to ask all of you to respond individually, starting with
Mr. Fowlkes, and then we will just go right down the line.
Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted
requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical
harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Mr. Fowlkes. No, Senator.
Mr. Ganjei. No, Senator.
Mr. Peterson. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
Mr. Fowlkes. No, Senator.
Mr. Ganjei. No, Senator.
Mr. Peterson. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. For Mr. Ganjei, you recently reposted on
your official U.S. attorney X account a homeland security post
that compared capturing undocumented immigrants to a Pokemon
game using the game's catch phrase, ``Gotta catch `em all.''
And you reposted this video of ICE officers catching immigrants
set to the Pokemon theme song, and you commented, ``Give
their''--meaning Homeland Security--``social media guy a
raise.'' It's troubling enough, problematic enough that all of
us are seeing videos of ICE agents masked, no identifying marks
or anything, engaging in raids in communities, sowing fear and
chaos. And to those individuals who are the subject of these
raids, do you think that being portrayed as a game, do you
think that's appropriate? Do you think that it's appropriate to
repost this kind of a video knowing that you are going to be
sitting as a judge possibly having some of these people come
before you? Do you find it amusing?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my understanding of that video is that
specifically is about ICE's Worst of the Worst Initiative. They
specifically cite, I think, eight or nine individuals in that,
one convicted of murder, one convicted of manslaughter, one
convicted of unspecified homicide, several child sex----
Senator Hirono. Excuse me. So, actually, we know that the
ICE agents are not just going after the worst of the worst.
That is what they are supposed to be doing, but we know that
there are U.S. citizens who are also being caught up. We know
that there is fear in many communities because of these raids,
and I'm asking you whether you consider this a source of
amusement to the point where you would repost this kind of a
video. You can just answer ``yes'' or ``no.''
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, again, the video, I understand it was
specifically talking about the Worst of the Worst Initiative,
and so, you know, having murderers and those that----
Senator Hirono. Okay.
Mr. Ganjei [continuing]. Sexually prey on children off the
street----
Senator Hirono. No, this is not----
Mr. Ganjei [continuing]. Is a good thing and----
Senator Hirono. Excuse me. This is not an opportunity for
you to basically toe the regime's line. Let me go on because,
obviously, I do not consider it appropriate what the ICE agents
are doing, sowing fear and chaos through our communities, to
the point where communities are rising up and protesting and
doing everything they can to protect members in their
community. Do you, Mr. Ganjei, agree that the Constitution
provides due process rights to all persons, regardless of
citizenship status?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, due process applies to everyone.
Senator Hirono. And as a judge, you would apply due process
to everyone regardless of whether they're U.S. citizens or not.
Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Your Honor.
Senator Hirono. Okay.
Mr. Ganjei. I'm sorry. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Thank you. Throughout your career as a
prosecutor--last question--you condemned attacks on law
enforcement officers, and you even issued a warning in your
district saying, ``Let it be known, if you lay a hand on an
officer, the Southern District of Texas will do whatever it can
to put you in Federal prison, et cetera.'' So, you are very
much against attacks on police officers. Did the rioters on
January 6 attack law enforcement officers?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator----
Senator Hirono. Yes or no.
Mr. Ganjei. I'm sorry?
Senator Hirono. Yes or no.
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my understanding from news reports is
that there were some.
Senator Hirono. I'm sorry. What?
Mr. Ganjei. My understanding from----
Senator Hirono. Did they attack law enforcement officers or
not on January 6?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my understanding from news reporting
is that yes.
Senator Hirono. And so, you also said that, ``People who
attack law enforcement officers are attacking the American
system of justice.'' So, would you say that the rioters on
January 6, who, by the way, were all pardoned by President
Trump, were they attacking the American way of justice?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I can't offer my opinion----
Senator Hirono. Yes or no.
Mr. Ganjei [continuing]. As to a matter of public
controversy.
Senator Hirono. Well, I would say that since you say that
people who attack police officers are attacking the American
system of justice, I would say the January 6 rioters fit that
profile or mold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Kennedy, I
would like to enter into the record three letters of support
for Mr. Ganjei, [off mic] one from a criminal defense attorney,
one from a public defender, and one from a civil rights
attorney. Each represented criminal defendants in cases before
Mr. Ganjei. All three letters praise his competence, ethics,
and professionalism as a Federal prosecutor. One of the letters
described the nominee as ``the human being that we should all
strive to become and the attorney most who practice hope to
be.'' All these records have similar sentiments.
Without objection, these three records will be placed in
the report.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Kennedy, and then who's ever on
the Republican side, I've got to go up to Finance, and I'll be
back, so just take your turn, and I think I'll be back before
the meeting's over.
Senator Kennedy [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Ganjei, how long did you work for Senator Cruz?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I worked for Senator Cruz for 3 years.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Did you work closely with him?
Mr. Ganjei. I would say so, Senator, yes.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Is it true that Senator Cruz can
burp the alphabet backward?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I've been instructed not to reveal
that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. Is it true that growing up, Senator Cruz
had an imaginary friend who his parents actually preferred?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I have no such knowledge.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. What article of the Constitution
calls for checks and balances?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think checks and balances is
inherent in the first three articles of the Constitution, which
gives to all of them different powers and responsibilities.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Mr. Peterson, welcome. Tell me how
you amend the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Peterson. Senator, you amend the U.S. Constitution
pursuant to the procedure found in Article V.
Senator Kennedy. Could you speak into that mic, please,
sir?
Mr. Peterson. Sorry, Senator. The Constitution is amended
pursuant to the procedure in Article V, and that is, a two-
thirds vote of both the House and the Senate and then
ratification by three-quarters of the States. There's also a
constitutional convention method, but that's never been used.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Mr. Fowlkes, how are you?
Mr. Fowlkes. I'm doing well.
Senator Kennedy. What's the warrant requirement?
Mr. Fowlkes. The warrant requirement states that any person
who is going to be arrested should have a warrant. The police
should seek a warrant for that person to arrest them. There are
exceptions to the warrant requirement, including exigent
circumstances, which are usually followed up in Arkansas with a
probable cause complaint and an affidavit and warrant in
support of that.
Senator Kennedy. What about to search someone? Do you have
to have a warrant?
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, that is----
Senator Kennedy. Well, let me amend that. Does the warrant
requirement apply to search and seizure?
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes. According to the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, there shall be no unreasonable
searches and seizures without a warrant. There are obviously
exceptions to that as well, including the Carroll Ross Doctrine
for movable objects, exigent circumstances when time simply
doesn't permit to be able to seek a warrant from a magistrate
or a judge, but yes.
Senator Kennedy. Could Arkansas decide that it doesn't want
to follow the Federal rule, that it wants to require a warrant
for all arrests and all searches and seizures with no
exceptions?
Mr. Fowlkes. They certainly could, Senator. However, as a
prosecutor for many years, I understand that those exemptions
to the warrant requirement are important for public safety and
for law enforcement safety.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. How could Arkansas do that?
Mr. Fowlkes. Arkansas could pass a law with the State
legislature to say that a warrant is required for every arrest
that's made throughout the State of Arkansas, and obviously,
you know, that would be subject to challenges in both State and
Federal court.
Senator Kennedy. And if Arkansas did that, why doesn't the
supremacy clause overrule Arkansas?
Mr. Fowlkes. It certainly would be an argument if that was
challenged in Federal court.
Senator Kennedy. Well, who would win?
Mr. Fowlkes. I'm not sure without knowing more facts about
how the statute was drafted and being able to examine, exactly
you know, the type of legislative interpretation that goes
along with that. So, without more facts, I don't think I can--
--
Senator Kennedy. Well, let me give you these facts. You
recited correctly the warrant requirement and the exceptions
both for arrest and search and seizure. Suppose the Arkansas
legislature said, we appreciate the advice, but we're not going
to file it. We're going to require a warrant for both arrests
and for searches and seizures, okay, and somebody challenged
that under the supremacy clause. Who would win?
Mr. Fowlkes. I'm not sure I've ever thought about that in
depth, Senator, but I think it would be a strong challenge to
that State law, and I think it would be a----
Senator Kennedy. What if Arkansas construed its State
Constitution to require a warrant for both arrest and search
and seizure?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think it would be the same analysis, whether
it was a law that was passed by the State legislature or an
amendment to the Constitution.
Senator Kennedy. Why couldn't Arkansas--You ever heard of
the adequate and independent State ground doctrine?
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Why wouldn't the adequate and independent
State ground doctrine apply there?
Mr. Fowlkes. That certainly would be an argument that one
of the parties could make in support of that Arkansas State
law. And again, I think it would go back to legislative
analysis and determining all the factors that go into that as
to whether that law would withstand the scrutiny from the
court.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, Counselors. Senator
Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you Chairman. Welcome to the
witnesses.
Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry. What did you call me?
Senator Whitehouse. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Well, you're the acting Chair,
aren't you? You got the gavel.
You all, if you are confirmed, will become Members of the
Federal Judiciary. You all will become Members of the Federal
Judiciary at a time when there's a particularly difficult
threat environment for judges. A person threatening a judge has
committed a crime, correct?
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Peterson. Yes, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. And the criminal liability related to
that threat could extend beyond the utterer of the threat. Is
that also correct?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think that would depend strongly on the
facts and circumstances, the nature of the threat.
Senator Whitehouse. Oh, absolutely, but there are facts and
circumstances in which criminal liability for threatening a
judge could extend beyond the utterer of the threat to
individuals who may have orchestrated or, in other ways,
directed that the threat be uttered against the judge. All
three of you agree with that?
Mr. Fowlkes. And I think my answer to that would be that it
just depends strongly on the facts and circumstances of that
situation.
Senator Whitehouse. Very much, but legally, it's a very
open route that could happen if the facts and circumstances are
there, correct?
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.
Mr. Ganjei. I would agree with my colleague, Senator.
Mr. Peterson. I agree with my colleagues.
Senator Whitehouse. And let's say that you are now a judge
and you are on the receiving end of that threat. Would you
expect that the Marshal Service, or if the Marshal Service has
handed the investigative piece of this over to the FBI, the FBI
would take a look at not only the utterer of the threat, but
also evidence that there may be other parties complicit or
culpable behind the utterer of the threat?
Mr. Fowlkes. Senator, there's been some very recent case
law on the analysis of threats both against individuals and
against Federal officials, and I would hope that the
investigating officers and the investigating AUSAs would look
closely at those factors and would look at also the facts and
circumstances of the individual involved and the circumstances
surrounding that. And so, I think my answer to that is, I would
hope that the U.S. Marshals, the Federal Protection Service,
and the AUSAs who are assigned to that case would look closely
at all of those factors and make an appropriate determination.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you all agree that it would be wrong
to categorically refuse to investigate behind the utterer no
matter what the evidence?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think I'd revert back to my original answer
that it just depends very strongly on the facts and
circumstances of the threat, and whether it's analyzed as a
true threat or whether other individuals are involved in making
that threat as well.
Senator Whitehouse. Which means that if there were such
facts and circumstances, it would be wrong for Federal
investigators, as a categorical matter, to refuse to
investigate that. There is a possible avenue of investigation,
and to foreclose that would not be right. Do I understand that
correctly?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think so, Senator. My original answer
remains the same, that I would hope they analyze all the facts.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, highly dependent on facts and
circumstances, but depending on the facts and circumstances, it
would be wrong to foreclose investigating that at all as a
categorical matter. Do you agree as well, Mr.----
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I agree with my colleague. I think
it's a highly factual circumstance, and I don't think I can
offer an opinion as to the scenario you presented.
Senator Whitehouse. Except that, you know, every criminal
investigation ends up being a highly factual circumstance. And
if there's an avenue of investigation and of criminal
liability, that should be investigated where the facts and
circumstances justify. It's a fairly straightforward
proposition. You're not contesting that, are you?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my understanding of your question,
whether every avenue of investigation should be pursued, I
think that's highly dependent on the specific case. Maybe an
avenue of investigation is----
Senator Whitehouse. Are there some cases in which an avenue
of investigation that's supported by the evidence should not be
pursued?
Mr. Ganjei. Well, Senator, I think the ``supported by the
evidence'' part of it's the key, and I think that----
Senator Whitehouse. That's why my question was asked the
way it was, which is, why would you want an investigative
agency to categorically refuse to investigate legitimate
avenues of investigation if the evidence, if the facts and
circumstances justify it? You're not suggesting that that's a
good idea, are you?
Mr. Ganjei. I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question,
Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Never mind. My time has expired.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator
Moody.
Senator Moody. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. I love the sound of that, ``Chairman.''
[Laughter.]
Senator Moody. And thank you to our nominees.
Senator Kennedy. Gives me goosebumps.
[Laughter.]
Senator Moody. Thank you to our nominees. Thank you to your
families for being here today. This is certainly a big day for
your loved ones, but you as well. Anytime someone in your
family commits to public service, that demands the entire
family's attention and often support. Certainly as someone who
grew up in a family of public service and now in one myself, we
are thankful to you for being here and supporting these folks.
And I was so struck by our nominees, they all share one thing
in common. At one point, either now or in the past, they were
all prosecutors, working to ensure that the laws passed by
lawmakers on behalf of the people, the people's laws were
faithfully enforced. And that is so important to our carefully
balanced separation of powers, the way our Government is meant
to work, so thank you for your prior service. I think it speaks
volumes and who you are as people and your commitment to
ensuring, not only the strength of our constitutional
framework, but the strength and safety of our communities, and
I, for one, am comforted by that, that we have nominees of your
caliber being put up for these positions.
I want to ask you about the phenomenon that we have been
seeing around the Nation where prosecutors of jurisdictions are
saying, ``I don't care what the people's law says, I don't like
the law, and I don't think it should be a law, and, therefore,
I'm not going to prosecute it.'' What is your opinion, Mr.
Ganjei, on what that does to the constitutional framework and
how the people's Government is supposed to work?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I don't want to speak about the
specific instance you described or a matter of public
controversy, but I could say that as a Government official, an
unelected mid-level executive branch official, it's not up to
me to decide what laws, you know, should be prosecuted or not
be prosecuted. I think the policy decisions are best left to
the branches accountable to the people.
Senator Moody. And just in general, not specifically, Mr.
Fowlkes, how important it is do we have top prosecutors of
jurisdictions enforcing the people's laws?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think that that's very important. Obviously,
we've have all taken an oath to enforce the law as they are
written, and I'm very proud of our record in Western Arkansas
with our case intake and with the prosecution of a variety of
criminal offenses in Western Arkansas. But I also share what
Mr. Ganjei, my colleague, noted that I can't speak specifically
to any particular prosecutors, so.
Senator Moody. And I'm not going to speak specifically, but
the phenomenon of having top prosecutors or top law enforcement
officials say, ``Personally, I'm not going to do what the
people want me to do because I don't agree with it,'' that
fundamentally disrupts our system of government. Would you
agree?
Mr. Fowlkes. I agree, and I think back to some of the jury
trials that I've handled and what we've asked jurors to do,
which is, even if you don't agree with the law or you don't
believe it should be a law, can you faithfully apply that to
the facts and circumstances of each individual case, and I
think if we ask jurors to do that, it's perfectly acceptable to
expect prosecutors and elected----
Senator Moody. And so, let me stop you there and talk about
the judicial branch. I was a former judge. I come from a long
line of judges. I've been a prosecutor like yourselves, a
lawyer.
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.
Senator Moody. And I'm really concerned right now that the
judicial branch has a PR crisis, a rightfully labeled,
probably, PR crisis because we have many district court judges
around the Nation that are more interested in wearing a blue
jersey than a black robe. And based on my fundamental belief,
we have to have impartial judges that will faithfully apply the
laws that are given to them. I believe this, just as the former
situation I described, fundamentally disrupts the careful
balance of power as set forth in our Constitution. Would you
agree, Mr. Fowlkes?
Mr. Fowlkes. I do agree, and I think it's----
Senator Moody. Do you agree, Mr. Ganjei?
Mr. Ganjei. I do, Senator.
Senator Moody. Would you agree, Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, Senator.
Senator Moody. And specifically, when you have district
court judges running around to conferences suggesting, with no
evidence or any circumstances to support it, that this
administration or this President is going to violate court
orders, or you have district court judges with no evidence at
all making decisions that Senators even would destroy evidence,
all of this undermines that fair and impartiality need that we
have to have, our public has to have, in our judges. And I am
terrified that some of the behavior that we have seen around
the country is undermining the strength of our system, and I
want to ask you, Mr. Ganjei, part of this is when judges issue
nationwide injunctions. What is your belief in terms of a
ceiling of relief that's available to a district court judge?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I know the Supreme Court has spoken on
this recently in the CASA case, that the relief should be one
that would give the parties before it full relief, but that
Congress did not authorize, otherwise, nationwide injunctions
for district courts.
Senator Moody. And I see that my time has expired. Thank
you.
Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Moody.
Now Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
for being here, and thank you for your willingness to serve.
Mr. Ganjei, you have been a prosecutor, and you've
repeatedly claimed that attacks on law enforcement are
unacceptable, which I think we all can agree. You've also said
that people who engage in attacks on law enforcement should be
held accountable. You stated in a Department of Justice press
release just last month, ``Those who attack law enforcement
officers are attacking the American system of justice.'' In
another release you said, ``Let it be known if you lay a hand
on an officer, deputy, or a Federal agent, SDTX will do
whatever it can to put you in Federal prison for as long as the
law will allow. You've been warned.'' President Trump gave a
blanket pardon to individuals who participated in the January
6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and many of them were involved
in assaults on law enforcement. I know that you've been asked
briefly about this issue during your appearance here today, but
let me just take a couple of examples.
Julian Khater sprayed U.S. Capitol police officer, Brian
Sicknick, with pepper spray. Officer Sicknick died the next
day. Khater admitted to this violence. He pleaded guilty to
assaulting officers with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to
more than 6\1/2\ years in prison for his crimes against law
enforcement officers before he was pardoned by President Trump.
So, my question to you is, do you support President Trump's
pardon of Mr. Khater?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I can't comment on the executive and
the President's exercise of his enumerated constitutional
powers or comment at all on an accorded branch's use of its
enumerated constitutional powers, any more that I could comment
on the House's use of the power of the purse. I am comfortable
saying I abhor political violence of all kinds.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, this individual atrociously
assaulted a Capitol Police officer, and you're unwilling to say
whether you support a pardon that allowed him to go free
without any record of a crime?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, as a judicial nominee, it would be
improper for me to wade into a public conflict like that and
comment on the President's use of his pardon power or President
Biden's commutation of people on death row. Those are issues
that I think are improper for a judicial candidate to comment.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I'm talking about violent assault
on a police officer Ryan Nichols, for example. Ryan Nichols
also pled guilty to assaulting law enforcement officers. He
pushed the crowd against officers who were defending the door
at the Capitol, and after the attack, he posted a video to
Facebook where he said, ``I'm going to be violent now,'' and he
said, ``If you want to know where Ryan Nichols stands, Ryan
Nichols stands for violence.'' He was sentenced to more than 5
years in prison. President Trump pardoned him. What do you
think is the reason that would justify that pardon?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I wouldn't stand to speculate on the
President's reasoning.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, do you support it?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, again, I can't comment on a separate
branch's exercise of its enumerated constitutional powers.
Senator Blumenthal. Are there any limits to what you would
not support in terms of the pardon use by the President?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, you stated any limits to what I would
support. I'm stating that I cannot comment on President Trump's
use of the pardon power or President Biden's use of the power
of commutation for people on death row.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, I haven't asked you about
President Biden's use of the pardon power, and for you to
gratuitously talk about other uses of the pardon, I think, is
simply meant to distract from this use of the pardon power with
respect to these individuals who committed brutal assaults on
police officers. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Hawley, I have
a letter here supporting Mr. Ganjei's nomination from a person,
Ray Hunt, executive director of the Houston Police Officers
Union. Mr. Hunt praised Mr. Ganjei's ``steadfast commitment to
keeping our city safe,'' and his efforts to ``work hand in hand
with local law enforcement to combat violent crime, reduce the
flow of illegal firearms and narcotics, and hold dangerous
offenders accountable.'' Without objection, that'll go in the
record.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Ganjei, I'll give you just some more time if you wanted to
respond. Did you want to say something about President Biden's
use of the commutation power?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I was merely illustrating instances
where the President exercises broad, unreviewable pardon power
and commutation power, and I understand that President Joe
Biden commuted the sentences of many people on Federal death
row.
Senator Hawley. Violent offenders, I think, weren't they?
Mr. Ganjei. That is correct, my understanding.
Senator Hawley. Do you want to give him a grade on that?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I wouldn't offer a grade on that.
Senator Hawley. Do you want to grade any President on their
use of the constitutional authority?
Mr. Ganjei. No, Senator, I would not.
Senator Hawley. Is that within your purview? Would it be
within your purview, should you be confirmed?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, neither whether I should be confirmed
or as a nominee would it be proper for me to comment on that
use.
Senator Hawley. Let me ask each of you, if I could, I want
to talk a little bit first about nationwide injunctions. I
think Senator Moody was starting to ask you just a moment ago.
I think this is a vital issue. If you were to be confirmed,
tell me what you understand the scope of your equitable powers
to be to grant injunctive relief. To whom could you grant it?
Under what circumstances? I think this is an issue of vital,
vital importance. It's been something that has been discussed
on a bipartisan basis here. So, let me start with you, Mr.
Fowlkes. Am I pronouncing your name correctly.
Mr. Fowlkes. Fowlkes.
Senator Hawley. Fowlkes?
Mr. Fowlkes. Just like ``a bunch of folks.'' Yes, sir.
Senator Hawley. Okay. Very good. Mr. Fowlkes, and then
we'll go down the dais. Go ahead.
Mr. Fowlkes. As I understand it, the issue of injunctions
and temporary restraining orders are controlled by the
provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. And pursuant
to that rule and the cases that have been interpreted of that
rule, there's a series of factors that courts have typically
considered in whether or not a temporary restraining order or
an injunction is appropriate, and those begin with the
likelihood of whether or not one of the parties, the moving
party, will succeed at trial, the irreparable harm that may be
possible if the order is not granted, the possibility of a
public interest in that order and several orders----
Senator Hawley. All of that sounds correct. Is it your
understanding, can you bind parties? Should you be confirmed,
could you as a district court judge, could you bind parties who
are not before you?
Mr. Fowlkes. It is a very developing area of the law, and
my understanding is, is that power will be limited by the case
law from the Supreme Court and also by the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Senator Hawley. Well, tell me what you think the relevant
case law from the court is. I assume you are talking about the
CASA case----
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley [continuing]. But tell me about it.
Mr. Fowlkes. In the CASA case, the Court determined that
was a power that should be reserved to the Congress for a
nationwide, you know, authority over certain issues, and I
think it is modified our previous understanding of Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 65. And I think, again, it's a very
developing area of the law, and it would be very fact
determinative and very fact specific, but I think that going
forward, it is an important case for every district court judge
to keep in mind.
Senator Hawley. Well do you think that--are you telling me,
as a district court judge, there are some instances as a
district court judge where you could bind parties who are not
before you?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think we're still understanding the Court's
ruling in CASA, and we are still kind of developing procedures
that go along with that, and so it would be highly unusual and
certainly challengeable in court if something like that was----
Senator Hawley. Well, what's the basic rule that you
understand the Supreme Court to have laid down on the CASA
case? Let me ask it that way.
Mr. Fowlkes. The basic rule is that a nationwide injunction
that enjoins people who aren't before the court would be
exceeding the court's power in that respect.
Senator Hawley. Okay. Good. Mr. Ganjei, do you want to
weigh in on this? How do you understand--what would your power
be as a district court judge to bind parties not in front of
you?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, generally, I would not be able to bind
parties, not in front of the court, but the goal for any
injunction would be to give complete relief to the parties
before the court.
Senator Hawley. Okay, which I think is the rule. I think
you just stated the rule of the CASA case, correct?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, yes.
Senator Hawley. So, in other words, the district courts.
Senator Kennedy, here I am, I'm asking the questions and giving
the answers, you know? I'm kind of----
Senator Kennedy. You're doing a great job.
Senator Hawley. Yes, thanks. It's really, I think, kind of
defeating the point, though. It's like your bar exam, except
for I'm giving the answers. I think the CASA case said that the
equitable powers of the district court are limited to providing
full relief to a plaintiff who is in front of the court
properly, but nothing exceeding that. Is that your
understanding, Mr. Ganjei? Have I got that correct?
Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Okay. So, let's just talk about what that
means in practice. I'll come to you for that, Mr. Peterson.
What does that mean in practice in terms of the district
court's equitable powers?
Mr. Peterson. Well, Senator, it means that the court has
authority over the parties that are before it in the case, you
know, the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, pointing out that
nationwide injunctions don't flow from the Judiciary Act there,
you know. The goal is to give complete relief to the parties
before the court, and if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed,
I would strive to achieve that.
Senator Hawley. And, you know, is it fair to say that
because the adjunctive power is itself equitable, and our
courts have said for centuries now that equity power is
something that's got to be very, very closely monitored, I
mean, because it's discretionary in many ways. It's difficult
to pin down. It can be broadened out and used for many, many
purposes. You've got to be very careful in the use of equitable
powers. Is it safe to say that you would want to be very, very
careful about any kind of a ruling that reaches out beyond
plaintiffs in front of you? Even if it's necessary to make the
plaintiffs in front of you whole, you'd want to be very careful
about binding parties in any way who are not in front of the
court.
Mr. Ganjei. Absolutely.
Senator Hawley. Yes. All right. I've got some more
questions for each of you as it relates to sentencing, the
purposes of sentencing, the sentencing guidelines, which I
think are very important. My time's expired, so I'll give those
to you in the written record. Congratulations again on your
nominations.
Chairman Grassley. By the way, I have legislation in--I
presume; I got several co-sponsors--on national injunctions.
And I was with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,
and he also has legislation in on that. So, regardless of what
the Supreme Court said, I think there's ways we can narrow it
down even more.
Senator Hawley. And I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I think
it's important we do it.
Chairman Grassley. Yes.
Senator Hawley. Absolutely.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Schiff is on his way. Senator
Kennedy, did you have any other questions you want to ask or
anything?
Senator Kennedy. Nope, I'm happy.
Chairman Grassley. Okay. I'm going to ask you folks----
Senator Kennedy. Can I be Chairman again?
[Laughter.]
Chairman Grassley. Out of courtesy to Senator Schiff, I
should just hold in abeyance the continuation. I don't have any
more questions, but----
Senator Hawley. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to ask
another question if you----
Chairman Grassley. Please, go ahead.
Senator Hawley. Okay. I'm sure the nominees are ecstatic
about that. Let me just--while we're are on this topic, I want
to stay on the topic of nationwide injunctions for just a
second. Let me just ask you this. If a district court were to
recharacterize the injunction and say, ``Well, it's not an
injunction per se, it's a temporary restraining order, and,
therefore, the CASA case doesn't really apply. Therefore, you
know, it's a whole different set of analysis.'' Is it your
understanding that you could do that? In other words, is the
temporary restraining order a get-out-of-jail free card? Is
that a completely different set of circumstances, a completely
different set of analysis? What's your understanding of how you
can use TROs and how the CASA case relates to TROs? Let's start
again with you, Mr. Fowlkes.
Mr. Fowlkes. Oh, I believe it's the same analysis and the
same factors. The one that I was just about to get to before is
the balance of equities, and I think that's where the CASA
decision makes a direct impact on the factors for both a
temporary restraining order and for a nationwide injunction.
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think the analysis would be the
same. They are both equitable remedies.
Mr. Peterson. It's the same analysis, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Okay.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Schiff.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you could give
me one more moment?
Chairman Grassley. Yes. We won't take it off your 5
minutes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Schiff. Thank you.
[Brief pause.]
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Ganjei, you worked
for professor and former deputy assistant attorney general,
John Yoo. And I wanted to ask you, he recently wrote an op-ed
in the Washington Post concerning the military strikes on
shipping and raised an issue as to whether that was lawful, and
let me ask you your thoughts as a legal and a constitutional
matter. In the absence of congressional authorization to use
force, in the absence of any declaration of war, are military
attacks on ships suspected of drug trafficking lawful or
constitutional?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think that's a highly fact-specific
situation, and if there were such strikes that were going to be
challenged in court, there is a likelihood that it could come
before me, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, so I don't
think I can offer an opinion that.
Senator Schiff. Well, can you offer an opinion on whether
you believe that the War Powers Act is constitutional?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, again, that might be something that
comes before me as well.
Senator Schiff. I would imagine any number of legal issues
could come before you. That doesn't preclude you from
expressing your legal views on the subject, particularly
something as broad as the constitutionality of legislation like
the War Powers Act.
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my answer's the same.
Senator Schiff. And let me ask you all, share with me, if
you would, your views on nationwide injunctions, and we could
go down the line.
Mr. Fowlkes. I think it's a very developing area of the law
after Trump v. CASA, and that decision, but typically,
injunctions and temporary restraining orders are constrained by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. And the courts have, along
with that rule, basically considered four important factors as
to whether or not an injunction or a temporary restraining
order should be issued, which I've already stated. But one of
them is the likelihood of a party being successful on that
injunction in trial eventually, the balance of equities between
issuing the injunction and not, the possibility of irreparable
harm, and then, of course, the public interest in issuing that
injunction. With it being a developing area of the law, it
would be a very cautious analysis, but it would include those
factors and the factors enumerated by the court in Trump v.
CASA.
Senator Schiff. So, you wouldn't categorically rule out the
potential applicability of a nationwide injunction?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think that we have to examine closely CASA,
and the key would be the balance of equities and whether or not
that Supreme Court decision constrains the application of those
four factors with a nationwide injunction, and it would appear
on its face that it would. And I think with it being a very
developing area of the law, it's going to be a fact-specific
and case-specific analysis that goes into those factors.
Senator Schiff. Would you care to respond?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I agree with much of my colleague's
statement. I would say post-CASA, you would look to see what is
needed to give the parties before you full and equitable
relief, but, generally, the Supreme Court has cautioned against
courts having the ability to bind parties not before it.
Mr. Peterson. And I agree with both of my colleagues,
Senator.
Senator Schiff. If we could go down the line also, do you
believe that the Congress has the power to legislate an
enforceable code of ethics on the Supreme Court?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think I would probably need more facts and
circumstances to be able to answer that question fully, but,
certainly, if Congress were to pass a law, it would be subject
to all the same scrutiny requirements from any other piece of
legislation.
Senator Schiff. Well, can you do a little better than that?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think that Congress certainly has the
authority under the law to issue, you know, laws and to vote on
laws and to pass statutes, and certainly that would be one that
Congress has the authority to do. Whether it would withstand
constitutional scrutiny, I would have to have more facts and
circumstances to be able to make a complete analysis of that
subject.
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I also would like to have more facts
before rendering an opinion on that, but, you know, I would
obviously be very attuned to the separation of powers concerns
that something like that would raise.
Mr. Peterson. Senator, again, I agree with my colleagues. I
was only going to add the potential separation of powers
concern, but Mr. Ganjei did that.
Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Schiff, are you done?
Senator Schiff. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin is on his way. [Off mic.]
He'll be the last one. He had to go to another Committee
meeting. That's why he wasn't here, so just hold, please.
[Brief pause.]
Chairman Grassley. Are you ready to go if I call on you
now? We're waiting for Senator Durbin, but you can go ahead.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as always,
congratulations to you all on the nominations. We are working
as hard as we can, and I know you've heard it from others, to
make certain that we get through the nominations and
confirmation process, and to fill positions with people that
believe in the Constitution and the rule of law and will
conduct themselves accordingly. Mr. Ganjei, am I saying that
correct?
Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. Just want to be sure there. I
noted that you had served as both an acting and an interim U.S.
attorney in Texas, and looking at your materials, I was
impressed by your aggressiveness and noted that you had filed
225 cases in a single week. A lot of those were narcotics
offenses, violent crimes, immigration matters, and your career
has included successful prosecutions. And I noted that you had
taken on some complex cases dealing with human trafficking,
child abuse, crimes against children, so talk about this
experience as a prosecutor and how you would translate that
experience.
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I first speak to my experience as a
prosecutor. You know, the one thing that I learned was how
interconnected so many of these different offenses are. Having
a secure border where we know where people are coming in is
essential to preventing the trafficking of children or human
trafficking. You know, it is something that, as the numbers
come down, you see less and less of it, and that's a very good
thing. As a judge, I understand how sensitive those cases are
and how they can be approached with great caution. We're
fortunate in the Southern District to have phenomenal
prosecutors that handle those cases. They're very dedicated.
They handle them with great care, with great compassion. And
so, you know, I think that if I were selected as a judge, I
would bring that experience with me, understanding that there's
a tremendous human cost. There's certain crimes that maybe
don't have an immediate apparent victim, such as, say,
narcotics trafficking. There isn't a person you can name, but
with sex crimes, crimes against children, there's a very
tangible victim there, and so justice for victims is very
important.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Mr. Fowlkes, I want to come
to you in the same vein because here at this Committee, we've
put a lot of work into fighting CSAM. My REPORT Act, which
requires Big Tech platforms to report to NCMEC when they have
actions against the safety of children, and then we are trying
to establish a national human trafficking data base. It is
Senator Klobuchar and I, completely bipartisan, but we think
DOJ needs to have that, and there is a lot of work we've done
in protecting children in the digital space. Senator Blumenthal
and I have the Kids Online Safety Act that went through the
Senate. We're trying to get it signed into law, and I know that
you've prioritized the prosecution of some of the CSAM and
child abuse cases, so talk about what you have done and how
that would influence your work going forward.
Mr. Fowlkes. Under my leadership at the U.S. Attorney's
Office in the Western District of Arkansas, we have prosecuted
child abuse cases and exploitation cases at over 3 times the
national average, according to the Sentencing Commission in
their statistics that they gathered over the last 5 years.
We're very, very proud of our work there, and the work is so
important because these are the most vulnerable members of our
society. And when we take an oath to uphold the law and accede
to enforce the law, there's no greater opportunity to make our
communities better and safer than to prosecute those who would
knowingly take advantage of children and exploit them in the
ways that you've described. It's such important work.
Going forward, obviously it would be so important for a
judge to consider all the appropriate sentencing factors which
are taken into account, but those would be among the most
important cases that any judge would review because the
victims, again, are so vulnerable and such important members of
our society.
Senator Blackburn. Well, we appreciate the work that you
all have done. I was talking with your Governor this morning--
--
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. And we were discussing the
work that Arkansas has done and the work she's led----
Mr. Fowlkes. Yes.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. To make certain that we
protect our children in that virtual space because most
children today, if they encounter a drug dealer, a sex
trafficker, a predator, a pedophile, a groomer, it happens
first that connection is first made in the digital space. So,
thank you for that work.
Mr. Fowlkes. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. I'm sorry I had to step out, but
I'll certainly be briefed by my staff as to the issues that
you've discussed.
Mr. Ganjei, as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of
Texas, you've repeatedly criticized defendants who assaulted
law enforcement officers. For example, you stated on multiple
occasions that you employ a ``zero tolerance policy'' against
these offenders, and you argued that individuals who attack law
enforcement are ``attacking the American system of justice.''
Do you stand by your comments criticizing individuals who
violently assault law enforcement?
Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Senator, I do.
Senator Durbin. Do you believe that the January 6 offenders
who were convicted of assaults on law enforcement attacked the
American system of justice?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think that calls for me to make a--
--
Senator Durbin. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Ganjei. Yes, it is. I'm sorry. I'll move closer.
Senator, I think that the question asks for me to wade into,
like, a matter of public controversy and a political issue,
and, therefore, I can't offer----
Senator Durbin. Too hot to handle, huh?
Mr. Ganjei. I'm sorry?
Senator Durbin. Too hot to handle.
Mr. Ganjei. No, Senator. I think just as a judicial
nominee, it would be imprudent, and I think the canons of
judicial conduct would prohibit me from weighing in on
political matters such as that and matters of public
controversy such as that.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Fowlkes, the most important criminal
justice reform legislation in a generation was the First Step
Act of 2018. I was proud to lead this and follow the real
leader, Chairman Grassley. It was signed into law by President
Trump during his first administration. The First Step Act
represented a bipartisan recognition that we can and must do
better when it comes to our criminal justice system in order to
make our communities safer for all Americans. We've made great
strides in bolstering public safety through the mechanisms of
the First Step Act. What are your thoughts on the First Step
Act as a Federal prosecutor, and what steps will you take as a
judge, if you are confirmed, to ensure that you encourage
rehabilitation whenever possible?
Mr. Fowlkes. I think it's an important piece of
legislation, as you stated, Ranking Member Durbin, and I
appreciate the question. I think that the First Step Act takes
into account certain factors that are so important to the
justice system, and some of those factors are obviously located
already in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)--the history and characteristics
of the defendant, their past conduct, the nature and
circumstances of the offense--but I think it also takes into
account the notion of rehabilitation. And in Western Arkansas,
we have something called the Focus Court, which our office has
worked closely with our judges in Western Arkansas to attempt
to rehabilitate those individuals who have been convicted of
nonviolent drug offenses and other nonviolent offenses, and to
prepare them to reenter society and to be valuable members of
society. And so, I think the First Step Act is an important
part of that signaling the importance of rehabilitation of some
of the criminals in our justice system.
Senator Durbin. On another related issue, the question of
court orders, there seems to be some doubt and some questions
have been raised as to whether or not the Trump administration
follows the orders of the court in a prompt fashion and in a
complete fashion. What do you consider to be the status of a
court order you issue, a final order, from the bench?
Mr. Fowlkes. That any order that's issued by Federal
district court carries with it great weight, and it carries
with it an analysis of the statute, an analysis of the factors
before the court, and I think that it should be given great
weight and great deference. With regard to speaking on current
public controversies, I'm simply constrained by the judicial
canons, especially Canon 5, which prohibits, you know,
political speech and political conduct, but I would say my
answer to your question is that the rulings of the court are
inherently important to our justice system.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Ganjei, a ruling by the court on the
executive branch members, is it required to be followed?
Mr. Ganjei. Senator, if I'm fortunate enough to be
confirmed as a judge, any order that I enter, I would expect
the parties, you know, regardless of who they are, to follow
them.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Peterson?
Mr. Peterson. Yes, Senator. If I'm fortunate enough to be
confirmed, I would expect that any order that I enter would be
followed by the parties.
Senator Durbin. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you. We're going to close now.
Thanks to all the nominees for your testimony.
[Off mic.]
Chairman Grassley. Written questions for the record may be
submitted until November 26 at 5 p.m. We'd ask you to return
them as quickly as you can.
[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]