DOJ Nominees Clash with Senate Judiciary Democrats on Compliance with Court Rulings

February 27, 2025 TruthUSA

Three nominees provided testimony before a Senate panel.

On February 26, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee interrogated various individuals nominated for key roles within the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the expectation that officials should always adhere to court rulings.

“I can’t make a blanket statement on that; it would depend on the specifics of each case,” Aaron Reitz, who has been nominated to head the DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy, stated during his confirmation hearing in Washington.

“That’s quite a statement from someone aspiring to be part of the Department of Justice,” commented Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

Durbin, the leading Democrat on the panel, highlighted a 2020 social media post from Reitz where he expressed dissent toward a court ruling and suggested Texas officials might disregard it.

“Ultimately, should an elected official have the capability to defy a federal court order?” Durbin inquired.

Reitz responded that it was too case-specific to determine a clear answer.

“There is no definitive rule stipulating whether a public official is bound by a court decision in every instance,” Reitz elaborated, noting that he believes good faith disagreements can exist regarding the applicability of court rulings nationwide, particularly toward individuals who were not involved in the litigation.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-Conn.) expressed concern that if officials were allowed to disregard court orders, it could “lead to a constitutional crisis.” He conveyed his unease with Reitz’s perspective.

Durbin also questioned John Sauer, President Donald Trump’s nominee for solicitor general, about this matter.

“I prefer not to speculate on hypotheticals, particularly those that may arise in my official role if I am confirmed by the Senate. In general, if a direct court order binds a federal or state official, they are obliged to comply,” Sauer replied.

He mentioned historical rulings, including the infamous 1857 U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring a black former slave residing in a free state was not actually free.

“I wonder if some historians might argue that it would have been better if that ruling hadn’t been followed,” Sauer remarked.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) noted that another Supreme Court decision endorsing the internment of Japanese nationals during World War II was “one of the worst and most reprehensible decisions,” suggesting that officials might not follow rulings they deem “morally reprehensible.”

Durbin shared concerns regarding the “great fear among many” that Trump might choose to ignore a court order.

Sauer countered, stating he does not believe that is a realistic possibility.

This line of questioning arose after government officials informed a federal judge in Washington that compliance with his order was not feasible. The U.S. Supreme Court intervened, putting a hold on the compliance deadline.

Both Sauer and Harmeet Dhillon, Trump’s nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, have previously represented Trump.

Later, Sen. Chris Coons (D-Conn.) asked Dhillon how she would respond if Trump requested something she believed to be illegal or unconstitutional.

Dhillon replied that during her tenure representing Trump, he had never made such a request of her.

“I truly can’t imagine the scenario you’re describing,” she stated. “It seems entirely hypothetical.”

Sauer served as the solicitor general of Missouri from 2017 to 2023, while Dhillon held positions as vice chair of the California Republican Party and as a member of the Republican National Committee prior to her legal practice.

Reitz, a former deputy attorney general in the Texas attorney general’s office, has been working as chief of staff for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who is part of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) offered advice to the nominees.

“Never, under any circumstances, take the stance that you will not adhere to a federal court order. That’s not acceptable,” he asserted. “You may disagree with it. Within ethical legal boundaries, you can criticize it, appeal it, or simply resign.”

Source link