Durbin Questions Judicial Nominees During A Senate Judiciary Committee Nominations Hearing

Durbin Questions Judicial Nominees During A Senate Judiciary Committee Nominations Hearing

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned judicial nominees during today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. During the first panel, Durbin questioned Judge Daniel Traynor, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, about blacklisting Columbia University law students.

Judge Traynor was a contributing author and signatory of a letter to Columbia University, criticizing the university's response to protests on campus following Hamas's October 7 attack on Israel. He vowed not to hire anyone who joins the Columbia University community. Yet, in denying a recusal motion in Thunderhawk v. County of Morton, North Dakota, which was brought by Columbia Law School's Initiative for a Just Society, Traynor wrote: "I reaffirmed my lack of bias towards any student or Columbia's faculty or initiatives of its law school."

"That statement seems contradictory. Stating at one point you would not hire anyone from Columbia and second, you have no bias against those from Columbia. Can you explain?" Durbin asked.

Judge Traynor claimed that he was not inconsistent in his positions and that he does not hold a bias against graduates of Columbia University.

Durbin then questioned Judge Traynor about habeas corpus cases in which he volunteered to hear petitions from immigrants who were rounded up as part of President Trump's mass deportation scheme in Minnesota. According to Politico's analysis, judges have ruled against the Administration's mandatory detention policy more than 10,000 times and even a majority of Trump-appointed judges have ruled against the Administration.

"You are an extreme outlier on this issue, which even you have acknowledged in several of your opinions. In your opinions, you have embraced the Trump [Administration's] position that it can detain any immigrant without a bond hearing-no matter how long they have been in the United States and even if they have no criminal history… The bottom line on the issue of habeas corpus-the issue of detention-why is it you are such an outlier when it comes to Trump's policy?" Durbin asked.

Judge Traynor responded that the Trump Administration was "acting within their limits." The Trump Administration's "Operation Metro Surge" immigration campaign led to the deaths of two Americans.

Video of Durbin's questions to Judge Traynor in Committee are available here.

Audio of Durbin's questions to Judge Traynor in Committee are available here.

Footage of Durbin's questions to Judge Traynor in Committee are available here for TV Stations.

During the second panel, Durbin questioned Michael Martin, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, about the terminations of career prosecutors who worked on a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act case. In April, the Justice Department's "Weaponization Working Group" issued a report detailing alleged weaponization of the Biden Justice Department. The report focused on a prosecution arising out of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan involving the FACE Act. The report claimed that the career prosecutors working on this case demonstrated anti-Christian bias in prosecuting defendants who blocked access to a reproductive health care clinic in Michigan.

"One day before this report was published, two prosecutors in your office were terminated for their alleged misconduct in this case. Do you believe that apolitical, career civil servants should be terminated simply because they were assigned to work on certain matters?" Durbin asked.

Mr. Martin responded that he does not believe prosecutors should be "terminated simply because they decided to work on the case." He continued to state that he had no role in terminating them.

Durbin then asked Angela Colmenero, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, about the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Ms. Colmenero represented Texas and a coalition of states challenging a memorandum establishing the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and expanding DACA.

"Do you realize it was created by President Obama 14 years ago, and more than 800,000 individuals have taken advantage of that program, and every two years they are required to register and re-register with the federal government to pay a filing fee of $600, go through a criminal background check that allows them at the end of the day to be able to work legally in the United States, and not be deported during that period? If they commit a crime between registration periods, they could lose all DACA protection. Are you familiar?" Durbin asked.

Ms. Colmenero responded that she is "generally familiar."

"The conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recognized the 'immense reliance interest' that DACA has created when it kept in place a stay for current DACA recipients. Do you agree with the Fifth Circuit?" Durbin asked.

Ms. Colmenero stated that as a judicial nominee, she cannot express or comment on whether she agrees or disagrees with an appellate court decision but that she would be duty-bound to apply the Fifth Circuit's precedent.

Durbin then asked Kasdin Mitchell, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, about the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Ms. Mitchell co-authored a brief in Shelby County v. Holder on behalf of Alabama, in which she argued against the protections of the VRA and claimed that the law undermined "state sovereignty." She also claimed that certain provisions of the VRA were inappropriate because things in Alabama and other Southern states had sufficiently changed since the original passage of the VRA in 1965. After the Roberts Court weakened the protections of the VRA, Southern states have moved to further disenfranchise Black voters.

"Are you aware of the current controversy on redistricting and the prospect of many minority seats being eliminated?" Durbin asked.

Ms. Mitchell replied that she is familiar with these matters.

"Do you stand by your efforts to weaken the Voting Rights Act?" Durbin asked.

Ms. Mitchell deflected and replied she did not want to offer personal views.

Durbin then asked Antonio Pozos, nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, about diversity in the legal system.

Mr. Pozos stated that he believes it is essential to get the best possible talent for our legal system. He continued to state that he has been fortunate to mentor and advise many young people from a range of backgrounds.

Video of Durbin's questions during the second panel in Committee are available here.

Audio of Durbin's questions during the second panel in Committee are available here.

Footage of Durbin's questions during the second panel in Committee are available here for TV Stations.

-30-