[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 41 (Thursday, March 7, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2265-S2266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Adeel A. Mangi

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have an extraordinary responsibility as 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--important legislation and, 
probably more important, the filling of vacancies in our Federal 
judiciary.
  Under article III of our Constitution, we create judges, and there 
are approximately 890 of these Federal judges across the United States. 
As vacancies occur, as they often do, the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
working with the White House and Members of the Senate, has to do 
background checks on these individuals, submit them to the FBI for 
further background checks, do our own due diligence, consider them in 
an open hearing before the committee, and ultimately vote in committee 
before they come to the floor for advice and consent.
  So far this year--I should say in this term--under President Biden, 
we have had 181 Federal judges who have gone through this process--been 
cleared on the floor, reported out of the Senate--and are now serving 
their Nation in this capacity.
  I can tell you that it is not an easy process. Lengthy questionnaires 
are given to each nominee to identify so many details of their lives, I 
find it hard to believe they kept track and record of it, but they did. 
Then, of course, Agencies call to verify the contents and answers in 
those questionnaires. Then they go through close scrutiny by the staff 
of the Judiciary Committee on both sides, Democrats and Republicans. 
Then comes the day of reckoning when they have their hearing in a 
public setting. Many of these nominees are questioned extensively by 
members of the committee. I will tell you, politics ain't beanbag, and 
when it comes to the questions asked of judicial nominees, it is a 
serious process.

[[Page S2266]]

  We have gone through more than 200 under the Biden administration in 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. Some of them have had a tough time of 
it, many of them had an easy time of it, but they all go through the 
same process.
  One of the most important accomplishments of this administration has 
been the confirmation of highly qualified, I believe evenhanded judges 
to the Federal bench.
  As I mentioned, to date, we have confirmed 181 lifetime judges, 
including a number of firsts--the first Black woman and public defender 
on the Supreme Court of the United States, the first Muslim-American 
judge on a district court, the first Asian-American judge on the 
Seventh Circuit. We should add another first to that list--Adeel Mangi 
to the Third Circuit.
  Mr. Mangi is a highly qualified nominee with incredible credentials 
and more than two decades of litigation experience. He would be the 
first Muslim American to ever serve on a Federal appellate court.
  Nevertheless, he is going through scrutiny unlike anything I have 
ever seen. He has been criticized and questioned in a way that I have 
never seen before in the committee. Unfortunately, many of the 
questions that have been raised about Mr. Mangi and his background have 
created suspicions in people's minds that his religion is the reason 
for the questioning.
  Treatment of this highly qualified nominee has sometimes reached an 
alltime low. At the hearing in December, committee Republicans 
subjected Mr. Mangi to combative lines of questioning about the Israel-
Hamas war. This is a man who is seeking to serve on a Federal bench in 
appellate court. The questions that are asked of him were more 
appropriately asked of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of 
Defense.
  At one point, a Republican Senator asked this Muslim American the 
following question: Do you celebrate the anniversary of 9/11 in your 
home? Think about that for a second. Because he is Muslim, this Senator 
thought it was appropriate to ask him whether he celebrated 9/11 in his 
home. He, of course, said no. He was a resident of New York and thought 
it was a tragedy that occurred in our Nation, and he had friends and 
family who were affected by that tragedy.
  During his hearing, under oath, Mr. Mangi unequivocally condemned 
anti-Semitism in all forms and condemned any acts of terrorism no fewer 
than 10 times. Think of that. Because he is a Muslim American, he was 
asked 10 different times whether he was anti-Semitic. He, of course, 
said no on each occasion. He also repeatedly denounced any form of 
hatred or bigotry in his answers to written questions.
  Any insinuation that Mr. Mangi is anti-Semitic is rooted in prejudice 
that has no place in our country, and claims that were made are false. 
As he explained, ``I have [ ] worked extensively to advance religious 
liberty, which I consider to be a fundamental American value, and to 
combat religious bigotry against any religious group. I have been proud 
to represent a unique and massive coalition that I built over many 
years involving major Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other 
religious groups on matters of common interest.''
  Mr. Mangi has also been unfairly attacked for his nominal affiliation 
with the Alliance of Families for Justice. Critics have falsely claimed 
that because of his minimal involvement with this organization, he has 
somehow associated himself with violent criminals and supports ``cop 
killers.'' That charge was made on the floor of the Senate against Mr. 
Mangi.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. As a longtime corporate 
lawyer, Mr. Mangi has never said or written anything--anything--that 
suggests he supports individuals who have murdered members of law 
enforcement. He has never--never--represented or otherwise provided 
legal counsel to anyone accused of killing a police officer.
  During the Trump administration, Republicans voted unanimously to 
confirm two judges who had personally represented individuals who had 
killed police officers.
  Let me add quickly that everyone in America has the right to counsel. 
The crimes they may be charged with could be horrendous, but they still 
have the right to legal representation.

  But to think that they would accuse Mr. Mangi of somehow supporting 
cop killers when he has never been involved with a client charged with 
that crime--the treatment of Mr. Mangi by some Republicans puts their 
hypocrisy on full display. There cannot be one standard for Republican 
appointees and another for Democratic appointees.
  Mr. Mangi is eminently qualified. He is a graduate of Oxford and 
Harvard Law School. He spent more than two decades in private practice 
at a preeminent law firm, focusing on complex commercial litigation. He 
has served as counsel of record in more than 30 matters before Federal 
appellate courts, as well as eight amicus briefs submitted to the 
Supreme Court.
  Throughout his career, Mr. Mangi has also demonstrated a deep 
commitment to pro bono work. In fact, he has devoted more than 4,000 
hours to representing clients in religious discrimination, employment 
discrimination, and asylum cases.
  Given Mr. Mangi's record, he has earned the support of a wide range 
of organizations, including organizations representing more than 1 
million Jewish Americans.
  Listen to what the National Council of Jewish Women had to say about 
Mr. Mangi:

       He is highly qualified to serve on this court, bringing a 
     wealth of professional and personal experience in addition to 
     extraordinary legal qualifications.

  Yet some of the Republican Senators on the committee suggested he was 
anti-Semitic, prejudiced against Jewish people. This endorsement by the 
National Council of Jewish Women clearly says otherwise.
  Following Mr. Mangi's hearing, the Anti-Defamation League, an 
organization which is dedicated to rooting out prejudice against Jewish 
people, sent a statement to the committee, unsolicited by me, in which 
they said:

       Berating the first American Muslim federal appellate 
     judicial nominee with endless questions that appear to have 
     been motivated by bias towards his religion is profoundly 
     wrong.

  Mr. Mangi also has the support of a number of law enforcement 
organizations, from the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization 
of Black Law Enforcement Executives to the Hispanic American Law 
Enforcement Association.
  Mr. Mangi stated:

       I am ready and prepared to be held accountable for any 
     statement that I have ever made, any word that I have ever 
     written, or any action that I have ever taken.

  He went on to say:

       I am not and should not be held accountable for statements 
     made by people I do not know at events that I was not 
     involved [in].

  Mr. Mangi is right. He should be judged based on his record, not on 
dishonest, bad-faith insinuations.
  I urge my colleagues to dismiss the smear campaign against Mr. Mangi 
and support his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I just want to 
associate myself with the remarks of the chair of the Judiciary 
Committee about the nominee. Everything he said is true. I share his 
horror at the vilification of him, which I do believe is based on his 
faith, and he would be an outstanding member of the Federal court.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your defense on behalf of an excellent 
nominee.