06/05/2025 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 06/05/2025 15:19
WASHINGTON - In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) earned praise yesterday for his questioning of Whitney Hermandorfer, President Donald Trump's nominee for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, regarding her lack of professional experience as part of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
Trump nominated Hermandorfer to fill the vacancy left by Judge Jane Stranch's decision to take senior status. Senator Coons questioned Hermandorfer's readiness to fill the seat, as Hermandorfer has only 10 years of legal work experience and has never tried a case to a jury verdict, performed direct or cross examinations in federal court, taken or defended depositions, or delivered oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Senator Coons pointed out that the judge Hermandorfer has been nominated to replace had over three decades of legal experience before President Barack Obama nominated her to the Sixth Circuit. He also noted that the non-partisan American Bar Association, which has historically been seen as objective vetter by presidents of both parties, would likely rate Hermandorfer as 'unqualified' because of her lack of experience.
From USA TODAY: Trump nominees for judgeships face scrutiny of youth, lack of experience
"I am concerned about the striking brevity of your professional record," Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, told Hermandorfer. He said she only graduated from law school 10 years, [sic] ago, but the judge she is being recommended to replace had 31 years on the bench before her nomination.
Coons pointed to a longtime standard from the American Bar Association that says federal judicial appointees should have at least 12 years of experience. While the association has long been involved in vetting judicial appointments, Attorney General Pam Bondi has said the association, which many conservatives criticize as too liberal, won't be involved.
From POLITICO: Confirmation process begins for Trump's first judicial nominees
…Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware suggested the nominee lacked the experience typically seen in lawyers proposed for federal appellate judgeships.
"I am concerned about the striking brevity of your professional record," said Coons. "You graduated from law school just a decade ago," said Coons.
Under further examination by Coons, Hermandorfer acknowledged she has never been lead counsel in a federal jury trial, questioned a witness on the stand or conducted a deposition.
A video of Senator Coons' full questioning and transcript of his comments are available below.
WATCH HERE
CAC: Thank you very much. Ms. Hermandorfer, thank you for your service and the Tennessee Attorney General's office, and congratulations to you and your family for your nomination. As you may know, I am not a reflexive 'no' vote on nominees of a president of the other party. I supported President Trump's judicial nominees in his first term when they had the qualifications and experience for the job and the character and the independence to carry out the role of a judge, particularly circuit judge, with integrity. I am concerned about the striking brevity of your professional record. You graduated from law school just a decade ago, and you spent four years with impressive clerkships, but often nominees for a position such as the circuit have real experience in court. Have you ever served as the sole or chief counsel in any case, tried to a jury verdict?
Hermandorfer: Not to a jury verdict, Senator.
CAC: Have you ever served as the sole or chief counsel in any case tried to a final judgment?
Hermandorfer: I've served as chief counsel in many final judgment cases in trial court. If you mean a bench trial, I'm sorry I don't understand, a bench trial would be no, but final judgment.
CAC: How many direct examinations have you personally taken in federal court?
Hermandorfer: As an appellate lawyer, I don't usually take direct examinations, and the answer is zero.
CAC: How many cross examinations have you taken in federal court?
Hermandorfer: None.
CAC: How many depositions have you taken?
Hermandorfer: Again, as an appellate lawyer, that's not really part of my practice.
CAC: How many depositions have you defended?
Hermandorfer: I have not defended depositions.
CAC: How many federal appellate oral arguments have you presented?
Hermandorfer: Federal appellate oral arguments? That would be four.
CAC: And how many Supreme Court oral arguments have you presented?
Hermandorfer: None. Though I've second-chaired and been counsel of record in Supreme Court matters.
CAC: I'll just point out that the jurist you've been nominated to replace, Judge Jane Stranch, had 31 years of legal experience under her belt when nominated to this position in the Sixth Circuit, and the ABA, although disregarded by some, has long had a standard that without more than adozen years of federal service, they would deem someone unqualified for positions such as what you've been nominated for. Let me move to a different issue, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Number 65 sets out the rules of the road for issuing TROs and PIs, including whether a party moving must post a security bond. What factors should an appellate judge consider when ruling on a challenge to a security bond set or not set by a district court under FRCP 65c before issuing a TRO or a PI?
Hermandorfer: So, this comes up sometimes when the state is a litigant, and oftentimes parties can move to waive the security bond, and what a court is looking to is the gravity of harm to the potential appellant, should the case, the disposition in the District Court, be allowed to moveforward. So, it's similar to kind of equitable considerations of harm and the gravity of that harm, and whether it would be reparable or, you know, compensable on the other end.
CAC: Thank you. And in what sorts of cases is it typical to set or require a security bond?
Hermandorfer: So, I think cases in which there's going to be financial exposure, for example, on behalf of an appellant, could be such a case where a bond might be…
CAC: Post contract case, or a case involving infringement of a patent or something like that. Does your analysis change if the matter is a constitutional case brought by a private plaintiff against allegedly unconstitutional actions of the federal government?
Hermandorfer: So, it's, I would have to take each constitutional violation and ruling on its own terms, and wouldn't want to prejudge but the equitable factors, of course, would be the ones that I would apply in such a situation.
CAC: How would you set a bond for something as foundational as a violation of the Constitution?
Hermandorfer: I'm not sure I could answer that in the abstract, senator.
CAC: And I'm not sure district court judges could answer that either. What tools does the Sixth Circuit, or any circuit, have to enforce its judgments? If you were confirmed and a party disobeys an order of the Sixth Circuit, perhaps even one you wrote, what would you do?
Hermandorfer: Well, I know that there are mechanisms by which, of course, judgments are entered and executed and enforced through federal district courts.
CAC: And what are those mechanisms?
Hermandorfer: Well, the federal district court sometimes can issue contempt rulings, for example, that are appealable. And you know, if you're talking about warrants or orders of those sort, I know the U.S. Marshals' office has some sort of involvement in that, but I confess this hasn't been part of something that I've litigated.
CAC: And when would you feel you'd met the standard to call in the marshals to execute your judgment?
Hermandorfer: I think it's very difficult again, to answer that question in the abstract, and I could just tell you, as a party, I've followed the appellate practice process whenever I felt as though a judgment had gone the wrong way against me, and I've secured appellate relief in those situations.
CAC: Last question, what would you do if the U.S. Marshals were to disobey and refuse to execute the judgment of the circuit court, if they were instructed by the DOJ to stand down and to refuse to implement an order of the court?
Hermandorfer: That would, probably, as junior appellate judge on my court, be something that I would look to my colleagues and whatever governing rules and precedents would govern that situation, but again, on the abstract as a hypothetical matter.
CAC: Ms. Hermandorfer, I hope this is an abstract and hypothetical matter, but it's one that occupies quite a few of us and quite a bit of our discussion on this committee, as we come up against the question of whether or not we have a president willing to disobey orders of federal courts. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.