[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 84 (Thursday, May 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1732-S1735]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Nancy G. Abudu
Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
nomination of Nancy Abudu to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
I served as Governor for 8 years, and, in that time, I had the great
privilege of appointing dozens of judicial appointments to Nebraska
courts. I appointed four of the current Nebraska Supreme Court justices
and many more to lower courts.
When I considered a prospective nominee, I was often reminded of our
State's motto: ``Equality Before the law.'' That motto reflects a
commonsense American principle that all people should receive equal
treatment and equal opportunity, regardless of one's race or
background. The women and men who serve in our courts should reflect
this motto.
When I considered nominees, I looked at a few things. I looked at
whether they were leaders with high integrity and character. I looked
at their experience, and I looked at how they understood their role as
a judge. Did they think the job of a judge was to make the law or to
interpret the law?
I looked at if they had a respect for the law and whether they had
the temperament to bring a thoughtful and fairminded approach to each
case they would have at hand. I looked at whether they were respected
by their peers. And I am proud of the appointments that I made.
Nancy Abudu is not someone I would have considered for a judgeship.
Ms. Abudu is the kind of soft-on-crime, anti-police, activist we
actually must keep off of the bench. And I want to take a moment to go
over her record.
Ms. Abudu has argued publicly and repeatedly that American voting
laws and the criminal justice system are racist and discriminatory. She
has specifically maligned the three States that comprise the Eleventh
Circuit that she is being considered for. In Alabama, she said that Jim
Crow continues to cast a long shadow on the State's elections.
She said that Florida is engaged in a ``war to strip poor and low-
income people of all political power.'' And she accused Georgia State
legislators of ``punishing voters and undermining democracy'' and said
that the State is a ``bad actor'' and ``simply cannot be trusted to
protect the rights of voters.''
At a time when Americans require certainty and security of our
elections, Ms. Abudu has consistently argued dangerous and misleading
positions, trying to undermine the public's trust of our elections and
our voting rights. She has argued that prohibiting felons from voting
is ``practically the same system as during slavery.'' She argued that
requiring voters to present identification is voter suppression.
My colleague, Ranking Member Grassley, described Abudu as one of the
``most activist judicial nominees we've ever seen.'' During her
confirmation hearing, the Judiciary Committee heard Abudu double down
in defense of her work in 2018 to challenge a Miami ordinance that
banned sex offenders from living within 2,500 feet of a school.
Senator Grassley questioned Abudu about a 2016 article where she
advocated for laws that ``would allow noncitizens to vote in local
elections'' and suggested that opponents of such legislation are
``trying to incite hysteria that undocumented immigrants are also
taking over the ballot box in addition to our country.''
When asked which election she thought noncitizens should be permitted
to vote in, Abudu declined to substantively respond, saying:
In the article, I noted that some cities allow noncitizens
to vote in local elections.
Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Abudu
about numerous partisan and inflammatory statements she has also made,
including:
Systemic racism [is] embedded in the criminal justice
system and other parts of our society.
That the ``problem'' with southern States when it comes to voting
laws ``is they're not always doing the right thing and the resentment
they feel is that historically, the Federal Government has not allowed
them to get away with it.''
Governor DeSantis is digging his heels in to ensure poor
people in his State are blocked from voting.
With respect to the privatization of schools, she said:
[W]e are not in an environment or a culture where we want
to rely on our State legislators to do the right thing by our
children, especially if they are Black or Brown.
Nancy Abudu's work at the Southern Poverty Law Center, SPLC, since
2019 and currently as the Strategic Litigation Director are also
extremely concerning positions. For those unfamiliar, the Southern
Poverty Law Center is a far-left activist organization that only
targets conservatives whom they disagree with politically. The SPLC is
well-known for, unapologetically and often without any justification,
labeling conservative and religious organizations and individuals as
``hate groups'' or ``extremists.''
As a Federal judge recently found that the SPLC hate list does not
``depend upon objective data or evidence'' and its application of the
``hate group'' designation is ``entirely subjective.''
Another Federal judge ruled that SPLC's ``representation or
description'' of a nonprofit organization as a hate group ``is not one
`of fact.'''
SPLC's Hate Map, as they call it, is ``outright fraud'' and ``a
willful deception designed to scare older liberals into writing checks
to the SPLC.''
Their misinformation has real-world implications ranging from
careless to incendiary and deadly. Floyd Lee Corkins entered the Family
Research Council's headquarters with a 9-millimeter pistol, multiple
ammunition clips, and a box of extra rounds, and the intent to ``kill
as many people as possible.'' Fortunately, Corkins was stopped by the
building manager from carrying out this mass shooting.
Under FBI interrogation, Corkins said he chose to carry out the
attack on FRC after it was labeled a ``hate group'' on the Southern
Poverty Law Center's website.
In 2018, the SPLC paid $3.375 million in damages after brandishing
British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz as an anti-Muslim extremist.
Similarly, the SPLC was compelled to issue an official apology for
placing Dr. Ben Carson under their extremist watchlist back in 2014.
In 2021, in Nebraska, we saw the Southern Poverty Law Center's
reckless and misguided definition of ``hate groups'' used against
University of Nebraska-Lincoln students. A Christian student
organization called Ratio Christi filed a lawsuit alleging the
University discriminated against the organization's conservative and
Christian views when it denied funds for a speaker.
I spoke out at the time urging the University to support speakers
from a wide variety of viewpoints on campus, including Christian
speakers. The group of students had secured legal defense from the
Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious freedom organization. The
Southern Poverty Law Center's designation of ADF as a hate group was
then used against the students in media reports across the State.
Fortunately, justice prevailed; and in a victory for free speech at
public universities, a Federal court entered a partial judgment against
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln officials who discriminated against
Christian student organizations. The University revised its funding
policies to provide
[[Page S1733]]
transparency and accountability in the process.
In 2023, an FBI whistleblower revealed the Bureau issued an internal
memo--now rescinded--on ``radical-traditionalist Christian ideology,''
citing the SPLC. The memo characterized radical traditionalist
Catholics primarily by their rejection of church developments since the
Second Vatican Council--Vatican II--and opposition to homosexuality.
The memo suggests the FBI should monitor these Catholics through ``the
development of sources with access,'' including in places of worship.
It presents a list of hate groups published by the SPLC as a place to
start with this work.
The SPLC's hate label destroys civil discourse and breeds contempt
for those with different views.
Americans want judges that understand their role to interpret our
laws, not make them. Americans want judges who want to give every
litigant a fair shake. Americans want judges that believe in our
Founding documents.
Ms. Abudu has failed to demonstrate she understands the critical role
that a judge should play in our legal system. Her record proves that
she is far outside the mainstream. Far-left activists do not belong on
the Federal bench. I call on my colleagues to join me in opposing this
radical nominee.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today, the members of this Senate have a
chance to make history. We will vote to confirm Nancy Abudu to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
A graduate of Columbia University and Tulane Law School, Ms. Abudu
has dedicated her career to defending the civil rights of all
Americans. She has experience litigating and overseeing complex civil
matters. She also has significant appellate experience, filing a number
of briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and arguing five cases before
Federal courts of appeals.
Throughout her career, Ms. Abudu has defended voting rights,
protected religious freedom, and advanced criminal justice reform. Her
perspective and experience will be a valuable addition to the Eleventh
Circuit, which currently has no former civil rights lawyers on the
bench. And when confirmed, Ms. Abudu will also be the first Black woman
ever to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. She was rated ``well qualified''
by the American Bar Association and has the strong support of her home
state Senators: Mr. Warnock and Mr. Ossoff.
As a lifelong champion of equal justice under law, Ms. Abudu will
make an exceptional appellate judge. I am honored to support her
nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak in opposition to the
nomination of Nancy Abudu to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. Ms. Abudu may well be the most radical judicial
nominee nominated to date by President Biden.
I have had concerns with Ms. Abudu's radical views and her apparent
lack of respect for the rules of the court ever since her nomination.
During her confirmation hearing, I asked her about allegations of
potential judge shopping raised by Judge Burke of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama in a series of cases brought
by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a result of troubling attorney
conduct.
In this series of cases, the three Federal district courts in Alabama
took the extraordinary and joint measure of convening to hear concerns
raised by Judge Burke that Ms. Abudu's litigation team and their
cocouncil brazenly abused the judicial process.
Ms. Abudu is, to be clear, the Director of Strategic Litigation for
the Southern Poverty Law Center. And strategic litigation is what they
do. That is what they are about. She is the director of this division.
When I asked her about her strategic litigation decisions in this
series of cases, she stated:
As Director of Strategic Litigation, my responsibility is
to oversee and provide general management for our cases, but
it is the subject matter experts in the litigation team that
handle the day-to-day, including the filing of complaints,
the briefing, and any oral arguments.
In response to my questioning, she refused to be forthright. She
didn't deny her oversight of these cases. She simply refused to admit
that she was responsible for the strategic decisions the three Alabama
Federal district courts found so troubling.
Her lack of candor and her apparent disregard for the protections
built into our legal system disqualify her for a position on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
As I asked her about these--about these cases--pointing out only that
the day-to-day litigation management was handled by other attorneys--
which was obvious--she was openly, directly avoiding a direct line of
inquiry, a line of inquiry that was very relevant to her nomination, to
her confirmation process.
But, unfortunately, my concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination do not
end--and they didn't begin--with this troubling series of cases that I
just described. You see, the attorneys general in every single State of
the Eleventh Circuit--who are joined, by the way, by the attorneys
general in a number of other States--but every single attorney general
serving within the Eleventh Circuit is part of this letter articulating
concerns and confirming that there are grave dangers in confirming Ms.
Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit.
These attorneys general, along with attorneys general from 15
additional States, including my home State of Utah, recently sent a
letter to the leadership of this body expressing their numerous
concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination.
The attorneys general of the people who would be subject to coming
before Ms. Abudu in Federal cases are justifiably worried about her
potential confirmation today. These are people who really need to be
able to have the confidence that when appearing before Judge Abudu, she
will not only respect the law, but that she will handle their cases
without any preconceived biases--biases that could lead her off course
as she administers justice in her courtroom. If anyone has preconceived
notions, biases regarding how justice ought to be administered such
that litigants could come to the conclusion that they won't get a fair
shake in front of that judge--not to mention the preconceived
prejudices against the good people living in the Eleventh Circuit--Ms.
Abudu has certainly demonstrated that she does.
Ms. Abudu is a longtime and current member and past leader of an
entity called the National Lawyers Guild. This group identifies itself
as consisting of a radical movement of legal activists--their words,
not mine. After violent protests against Atlanta police officers, the
National Lawyers Guild declared that ``policing is the true threat to
our collective safety.''
Imagine that. It is not crime, it is not other problems that police
deal with; it is the police themselves policing--the act of policing.
They didn't say specific police officers who may, unlike most
officers, not be doing their jobs right. They said policing--policing
itself--is the true threat to our collective safety.
Imagine that.
I agree with these attorneys general that Ms. Abudu's longstanding
and ongoing association with this radical anti-police group is, alone,
grounds for refusing, rejecting her nomination.
I find it very troubling indeed that those who would be subject to
having to come before Ms. Abudu find her track record dishonest and
divisive. Let me quote from the letter outlining their concerns:
We are familiar with Ms. Abudu's work and her willingness
to demonize those with whom she disagrees, and we know well
the importance of the seat on the Eleventh Circuit that she
would fill. Ms. Abudu has proven herself unfit for that role.
She has compared her fellow Americans to Jim-Crow-era
racists. She has aligned herself with self-proclaimed
``radical movement legal activists'' who view ``policing'' as
``the true threat to our collective safety.''
And the quote continues:
And she has proclaimed that our criminal justice system is
``practically the same system as during slavery.'' These
spurious and outrageous statements vividly demonstrate that
she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness, and integrity
required of a Federal judge.
Now, to be clear, Ms. Abudu chose to associate herself with the
Southern Poverty Law Center, which is itself well known for leveling
unfounded
[[Page S1734]]
charges of ``hate'' against any person or any group with which that
organization happens to disagree.
She became a leader in that organization and fully embraced its
deplorable tactics, which are not intended to foster debate and
understanding but rather to silence opposition.
They are well known for publishing things. Their hate list has
brought about hate. It led to a shooting in Washington, DC, of an
entity here. Someone got shot after believing that the Southern Poverty
Law Center had indicated that that was the appropriate action.
She has made offensive and baseless assertions against the people in
the Eleventh Circuit. Now I want to quote some more from the Attorneys
General letter:
Since becoming a leader [of the Southern Poverty Law
Center], Ms. Abudu has engaged in [the] deplorable tactics
[beloved by that organization] by disparaging those in her
way, including each of the three States within the
jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For
example, she and her team submitted a ``Report'' to Congress
about Alabama's supposed ``unyielding record of racial
discrimination in voting.'' The Alabama Attorney General's
Office set the record straight in a follow-up report that
went claim-by-claim, documenting the SPLC's many
misrepresentations.
The quote continues:
Each misrepresentation served the overarching theme of Ms.
Abudu's report--that any disagreement over policy is proof
that her political opponents are evil. Indeed, according to
Ms. Abudu, things in Alabama are the same or worse today than
they were in 1965. As she tells it, Alabama's goal--today--is
to--
Now, these are her words--
``establish white supremacy in this State.''
The letter continues:
While some might see room for good faith debate, for
example, about the merits of Alabama's voter identification
law, (which was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit)--
The Court on which she has been nominated to serve--
Ms. Abudu sees only a ``relentless commitment to finding
new ways to keep . . . Alabamians from making their voices
heard,'' all . . . part of a desperate attempt ``to
perpetuate majority white control.''
Her words, not mine.
The letter concludes:
These assertions are as offensive as they are baseless, and
they are disqualifying for an aspiring Federal judge.
To quote one more time from the letter, another part of the letter
says:
Though Ms. Abudu is surely aware of [the] facts, she
prefers to use her powerful position at [the Southern Poverty
Law Center] to sow division and erode trust among Americans--
declaring that ``Jim Crow is still alive and well [in the
South].'' But as the Supreme Court has recognized (and as any
fair-minded person knows): ``Things have changed in the
South.'' Ms. Abudu's contrary contention doesn't show simple
professional disagreement. It shows, at best, insuperable
bias. It more likely shows dishonesty. And it certainly shows
unfitness for judicial office.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from these
Attorneys General be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Alabama,
Office of the Attorney General,
March 22, 2023.
Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell:
On behalf of the State of Alabama and other concerned States,
we write to warn you of the dishonest and divisive track
record of Nancy Abudu, who President Biden has nominated to
be a United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. We are familiar with Ms. Abudu's work and
her willingness to demonize those with whom she disagrees,
and we know well the importance of the seat on the Eleventh
Circuit that she would fill. Ms. Abudu has proven herself
unfit for that role. She has compared her fellow Americans to
Jim-Crow-era racists. She has aligned herself with self-
proclaimed ``radical movement legal activists'' who view
``policing'' as ``the true threat to our collective safety.''
And she has proclaimed that our criminal justice system is
``practically the same system as during slavery.'' These
spurious and outrageous statements vividly demonstrate that
she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness, and integrity
required of a federal judge. Her nomination should be
rejected.
As you know, Ms. Abudu has been the Director of Strategic
Litigation for the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center
since 2019. The SPLC is infamous for leveling unfounded
charges of ``hate'' against political opponents.
Since becoming a leader in that organization, Ms. Abudu has
engaged in those same deplorable tactics by disparaging those
in her way, including each of the three States within the
jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For
example, she and her team submitted a ``Report'' to Congress
about Alabama's supposed ``unyielding record of racial
discrimination in voting.'' The Alabama Attorney General's
Office set the record straight in a follow-up report that
went claim-by-claim, documenting the SPLC's many
misrepresentations. Each misrepresentation served the
overarching theme of Ms. Abudu's report--that any
disagreement over policy is proof that her political
opponents are evil. Indeed, according to Ms. Abudu, things in
Alabama are the same or worse today than they were in 1965.
As she tells it, Alabama's goal--today--is to ``establish
white supremacy in this State.'' While some might see room
for good faith debate, for example, about the merits of
Alabama's voter identification law (which was upheld by the
Eleventh Circuit), Ms. Abudu sees only a ``relentless
commitment to finding new ways to keep Black Alabamians from
making their voices heard,'' all as part of a desperate
attempt ``to perpetuate majority white control.''
These assertions are as offensive as they are baseless, and
they are disqualifying for an aspiring federal judge. For
decades, black and white voter registration and turnout in
Alabama has been at or near parity. In 2018, Alabama had the
second highest black voter registration rate in the entire
country.'' Though Ms. Abudu is surely aware of these facts,
she prefers to use her powerful position at SPLC to sow
division and erode trust among Americans--declaring that
``Jim Crow is still alive and well.'' But as the Supreme
Court has recognized (and as any fair-minded person
knows): ``Things have changed in the South.'' Ms. Abudu's
contrary contention doesn't show simple professional
disagreement. It shows, at best, insuperable bias. It more
likely shows dishonesty. And it certainly shows unfitness
for judicial office.
Ms. Abudu has a similar track record of misstatements when
it comes to Florida. She baselessly accused Governor DeSantis
of ``digging in his heels to ensure poor people in his state
are blocked from voting'' and suggested that Florida is
engaged in a ``war to strip poor and low-income people of all
political power.''
She has also demonstrated marked hostility to the State of
Georgia and especially its law enforcement officers. Without
evidence, she has asserted that Georgia has a ``culture of
law enforcement that still targets Black and Brown people.''
She has derided the entire State, claiming that ``Georgia
continues to be a bad actor,'' and that the state legislature
``is committed to keeping us in the past and that is scary.''
How could Ms. Abudu impartially adjudicate the many Eleventh
Circuit cases involving Georgia, its statutes, its citizens,
and especially its law enforcement officers, when she already
believes that the State is a ``bad actor'' with a ``culture
of law enforcement'' that ``targets Black and Brown people''?
It's also important to recognize that Ms. Abudu attempted
to leverage misrepresentations and invective to affect this
Chamber's vote on legislation. She derided the supposed
``anti-voter legislatures . . . in the Deep South'' as
justification for a federal overhaul of State elections. She
even insisted on ``abolishing the filibuster'' to accomplish
her goal, referring to it as ``a legislative tool popular
with pro-Jim Crow senators of the past.'' Fortunately, the
Senate saw through this divisive narrative. But if the Senate
confirms Ms. Abudu to a seat on the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals, she will be empowered to press her radical agenda
from a position of power checked only by the occasional
review of the United States Supreme Court. This Chamber must
not reward her behavior with a lifetime appointment to a seat
where she would decide appeals in important cases involving
the very States she says are irredeemably trapped in 1965.
The SPLC's unethical conduct goes beyond Ms. Abudu's
misrepresentations to this body. Several SPLC attorneys are
currently being investigated by a three-judge federal
district court for attempts to circumvent court rules by
filing and then re-filing litigation against the State of
Alabama. Ms. Abudu protests that she ``was not involved'' in
the conduct under investigation but that's hard to square
with her job directing the SPLC's strategic litigation,
including her self-described role of ``the review and
approval of litigation requests.'' Even if it's true that
Ms. Abudu wasn't involved in the decision to try to
circumvent federal court rules, this conduct occurred on
her watch, which raises further questions about her
judgment.
More recently, another SPLC attorney--presumably someone
under Ms. Abudu's supervision in her role as Director of
Strategic Litigation--was arrested and charged with domestic
terrorism in relation to violent ``protests'' related to
police facilities in Atlanta. The arrested attorney worked in
the same office that Ms. Abudu lists as her work address. In
response to the arrest, the SPLC tacitly approved its
employee's alleged terrorism, choosing instead to put out a
joint statement with the radical National Lawyers Guild
criticizing the supposed ``heavy-handed law enforcement
intervention against protesters.'' It's not clear whether Ms.
Abudu was involved with that attorney or the SPLC's response
to his arrest, but the SPLC's response shows the culture of
its office and its attitude toward the rule of law and law
enforcement.
[[Page S1735]]
Ms. Abudu's status as a current member and past leader of
the National Lawyers Guild is similarly troubling. The NLG is
a self-described group of ``radical movement legal
activists.'' And in response to violent protests against the
Atlanta police facilities mentioned above, NLG declared that
``policing is the true threat to our collective safety.'' Ms.
Abudu's longstanding and ongoing association with this
radical, anti-police group is yet another ground for
rejecting her nomination.
It would be hard to overstate the importance of federal
circuit courts of appeals. Nearly every federal appeal ends
at the circuit court. Attorneys in our offices regularly
practice before these courts, and we have great respect for
these judges who dedicate their lives to the rule of law and
to ensuring that all litigants before them are fairly heard.
Ms. Abudu's dishonest and divisive record shows that she
would not be such a judge. She is an activist. She has
repeatedly used misrepresentations and hateful rhetoric to
advance her political goals. And she has thus shown herself
unfit for this lifetime appointment. Because our judiciary
needs jurists who will uphold the rule of law, not ``radical
movement legal activists'' in robes, the Senate should reject
Ms. Abudu's nomination.
Sincerely,
Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Tim Griffin,
Arkansas Attorney General; Chris Carr, Georgia Attorney
General; Todd Rokita, Indiana Attorney General; Daniel
Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General; Lynn Fitch, Mississippi
Attorney General; Ashley Moody, Florida Attorney General;
Raul Labrador, Idaho Attorney General; Brenna Bird, Attorney
General of Iowa; Jeff Landry, Louisiana Attorney General;
Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General; Mike Hilgers,
Nebraska Attorney General; Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney
General; Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General; Ken Paxton,
Attorney General of Texas; Alan Wilson, South Carolina
Attorney General; Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General;
Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney General.
Mr. LEE. She has shown marked hostility toward Alabamians,
Floridians, and Georgians. She has accused them of suppressing
minorities and poor people from voting. She has accused their police
officers of targeting minorities, and all throughout her accusations is
the threat of racism. It animates her every action, her every assault,
her every view.
She accuses Georgia of being ``committed to keeping us in the past
and that is scary.''
As the Attorneys General appropriately ask, ``How could Ms. Abudu
impartially adjudicate the many Eleventh Circuit cases involving
Georgia, its statutes, its citizens, and especially its law enforcement
officers, when she already believes the State is a `bad actor' with a
`culture of law enforcement' that `targets Black and Brown people'?''
There again, they are quoting her words. Ms. Abudu's record of
hostility toward the people and the laws of the Eleventh Circuit is
nothing short of alarming. When you combine that hostility with her
lack of respect for the judicial system and her ongoing commitment to a
group of self-described ``radical movement legal activists,'' I simply
don't know how any Member of this body can still believe she will serve
the people of the Eleventh Circuit or, even less, our judicial system
well.
But the only way one can justify voting for this nominee is if one
agrees with her hostile views and is comfortable with her activist
approach. I am not, and I oppose her nomination in the strongest
possible terms.