S.Hrg.119-313

1[Senate Hearing 119-313]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-31356              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS78=======================================================================910                                HEARING1112                               before the1314                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY15                          UNITED STATES SENATE1617                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS1819                             FIRST SESSION2021                               __________2223                           NOVEMBER 19, 20252425                               __________2627                          Serial No. J-119-502829                               __________3031         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary3233    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3435                        www.judiciary.senate.gov36                            www.govinfo.gov37                                   _______3839                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE404162-970                       WASHINGTON : 20264243                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4445                  CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman46LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,47JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member48MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island49TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota50JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware51THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut52JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii53MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey54ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California55KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont56ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ADAM B. SCHIFF, California5758             Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director59         Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director6061                            C O N T E N T S6263                              ----------6465                           OPENING STATEMENTS6667                                                                   Page6869Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     270Cornyn, Hon. John................................................     571Cruz, Hon. Ted...................................................     17273                          VISITING INTRODUCERS7475Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......     676Cotton, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas........     677Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from Alaska.....................     47879                                NOMINEES8081Fowlkes, David Clay..............................................     782    Questionnaire................................................    3083    Responses to written questions...............................    588485Ganjei, Nicholas Jon.............................................     986    Questionnaire................................................    9987    Responses to written questions...............................   16488    Additional materials.........................................   2158990Peterson, Aaron Christian........................................     991    Questionnaire................................................   22592    Responses to written questions...............................   2589394              CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS9596                              ----------9798                      WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 202599100                              United States Senate,101                                Committee on the Judiciary,102                                                    Washington, DC.103    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in104Room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.105Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.106    Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Cornyn, Cruz,107Hawley, Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt, Moody,108Durbin, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Hirono, and Schiff.109    Also present: Senators Boozman, Cotton and Sullivan.110111              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,112             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS113114    Senator Cruz. Good morning. The Senate Judiciary Committee115is called to order. Welcome to everyone. Today, we welcome a116panel of three nominees: Mr. Nicholas Ganjei, Mr. Aaron117Peterson, and Mr. David Fowlkes. I want to thank each of you118for your willingness to serve, and I welcome your families who119are here in support.120    We are participating in a process with a storied history.121Under the Senate's earliest rules, the Judiciary Committee has122stood as one of the three original Committees of the U.S.123Senate. For more than 150 years, this Committee has held124nomination hearings, upholding a tradition that reaches far125beyond any single nominee. These proceedings represent the126solemn duty entrusted to this Committee, to safeguard the127integrity of the Federal Judiciary, an institution that remains128the backbone of our constitutional republic. For more than 2129centuries, our courts have served as a stabilizing force in130American life. They have defended liberty in times of crisis,131checked overreach in moments of political passion, and upheld132the rule of law when it was least popular to do so. And today,133under President Trump, we are witnessing a welcomed return to134that tradition, a return to judges who read the law, who135respect the separation of powers, and who understand that the136judiciary is not a political weapon, but rather, a137constitutional trust.138    We need to renew our constitutional heritage. Even now,139some courts continue to stretch beyond their constitutional140role, issuing sweeping injunctions, expanding statutes past141their text, and inserting ideology into matters reserved for142the elected branches. Through the nomination of rule-of-law143judges, we are restoring courts to their rightful place,144interpreting the law as written, not as wished, and that return145to constitutional values shows the character and caliber of the146nominees coming before this Committee. We see men and women who147have dedicated their lives to the rule of law, who have148prosecuted criminals, defended communities, and shown, through149years of public service, that fidelity to the Constitution is150not an abstract promise, but, rather, a lived commitment, which151brings me to introduce the first nominee on today's panel,152Nicholas Ganjei.153    Nick is exactly the kind of nominee who reflects the best154of this moment. Nick has spent nearly 20 years on the front155lines of Federal law enforcement. He has prosecuted cartel156traffickers, violent offenders, predators of children, human157smugglers, and corrupt actors who have threatened our158communities. He has tried cases, overseen offices, managed159teams, and now, as the U.S. attorney for the Southern District160of Texas, he leads one of the busiest, most consequential U.S.161attorney offices in the Nation. His record is enormous in scope162and unmistakable in character. Under his leadership, Federal163prosecutors in Houston and across South Texas have dismantled164transnational criminal organizations, stopped human trafficking165pipelines, taken down large-scale drug rings, and protected166children from predation. He has enforced immigration law167faithfully in a district where more than 70 percent of Federal168sentencing matters involve immigration offenses. He has done169the work quietly, diligently, professionally that keeps170Americans safe.171    He has also served this body dutifully and patriotically.172Indeed, Nick's one failing is his choice for whom to work, and173for 3 years, Nick was my chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary174Committee. I hope this Committee will forgive him that175momentary lapse in judgment, but I can tell you, in that role,176I saw firsthand the qualities that define him, exceptional177judgment, deep integrity, respect for the Constitution, and178humility in the exercise of public power. He was a leader on179criminal justice issues, on border security, on judicial180nominations, and on some of the most complex matters that come181before this Committee. I trusted his counsel then, and I trust182his character now.183    President Trump nominated Nick because he embodies the184traits we should demand from every Federal judge, seriousness,185independence, commitment to the rule of law, and a lifetime of186service and dedication to the American people. I have every187confidence that he will serve the Southern District with honor,188and I wholeheartedly support his nomination. And with that, I189recognize Ranking Member Durbin for his opening remarks.190191         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,192           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS193194    Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Cruz, and195congratulations to the nominees, their families, and friends196who have gathered here today. We have three district court197nominees before the Committee. I want to apologize in advance198that I have a meeting with the leadership at 10:30, so I have199to step out. I hope I can return and personally ask my200questions at that time.201    I want to raise an issue that doesn't relate exclusively to202these nominees but, basically, all the Members of the203Judiciary. The job of a district court judge is not an easy204task. The dockets are busy, the questions of law are205complicated, but more recently, and especially this year, the206work has become even more difficult as jurors across the207country face increasing personal attacks and even threats of208violence. The uptick in threats is not random. The attacks209against individual judges by this administration and their210passionate followers have well been recorded.211    In March, the President demanded the impeachment of a212Federal judge simply for ruling against the administration. The213President called the judge ``A Radical Left Lunatic, a214troublemaker and agitator.'' The President added, ``This judge,215like many of the Crooked Judges' I am forced to appear before,216should be IMPEACHED.'' The President is not the only member of217this administration to use this kind of inflammatory language.218Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, a219former personal lawyer of the President, told the Federalist220Society the administration is engaged in ``a war'' against221``rogue activist judges.'' When the deputy attorney general222refers to litigation involving the Government as a war, you can223understand how the President's supporters might consider224threats and violence as a natural next step.225    Just last month, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff,226Stephen Miller, referred to a district judge court's order227blocking the Trump administration's deployment of the National228Guard as ``legal insurrection.'' Mr. Miller claimed that the229so-called left-wing terrorism is ``shielded by far-left230Democratic judges, prosecutors, and attorneys general. The231President who is nominated, who was nominated--his record232should be explained.'' Taking this criticism from the White233House is hard to imagine, but this was a judge that was234actually chosen by President Trump in his first term.235    MAGA loyalists in Congress have eagerly piled on. So far236this year, Republican Congressmen have filed impeachment237resolutions against at least eight district court judges for238high crimes and misdemeanors, and the crime they are accused239of? Disagreeing with the President. In response to this240unprecedented attack on the judiciary, Chief Justice John241Roberts issued a rare statement. ``For more than 2 centuries,242it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate243response to disagreement concerning judicial decisions. The244normal appellate review process was made for that purpose.'' As245a result of the surge in threats, many judges now require246additional security, including many judges in my home State of247Illinois. The administration's unlawful immigration raids in248Chicago have led to numerous lawsuits and controversial249decisions. This litigation, in turn, has led to a rise in250threats against several judges who actually handle these cases.251As I've said many times before and will repeat each time given252an opportunity, violence or threats of violence, whether from253the right or the left of the political spectrum, are never,254ever acceptable.255    I would like to quote from a recent statement by the256Chicago Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, a nonpartisan257organization. The statement reads, ``Expressions of public258sentiment, whether criticism or praise, are not threats to259judicial independence. Recent threats of violence directed at260Chicago Federal judges for simply doing their job, however, are261unacceptable and have no place in our discourse.'' I couldn't262agree more. More than 6 months ago I asked the Justice263Department for a briefing on the Marshal Service efforts to264protect our judges. I'm still waiting for that to take place.265It should be a priority of this Committee. The threats and266challenges our Federal judges face grow worse every day. Let's267do something about it on the Judiciary Committee. I yield, Mr.268Chairman.269    Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Thank you. Now, in this270order because Senator Sullivan and Senator Cornyn have other271engagements, I'm going to call on Senator Sullivan first.272273                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,274            A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA275276    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator277Durbin, and my Senate colleagues on the Judiciary Committee.278It's an honor to be here today to introduce a distinguished279Alaskan before this Committee, Aaron Peterson, who has been280nominated by President Trump to serve as a judge on the United281States District Court for the District of Alaska.282    As you all know, the vetting process for a Federal judge is283rigorous and time consuming, as it should be, and I want to284thank Aaron and his family for their patience as this process285has moved forward. As part of this nominating process, Aaron286was interviewed by the Alaska Federal Judiciary Council, a287bipartisan group of Alaskans who volunteer their time to288interview Federal judge candidates. The recent controversy289about a Federal judge in Alaska, who was not my first choice290and ended up being a real disgrace to Alaska and the Federal291judiciary, made it clear to me that we needed a much better292vetting system in Alaska for Federal judges, so I established293the Alaska Federal Judiciary Council. Aaron is the first294nominee who was interviewed by that Council, and I convened295this, as I mentioned, for better vetting, and I actually took296some advice from our Senators from Texas and Senator Durbin who297have similar Committees to nominate quality candidates. I know298that this Alaska Federal Judiciary Council process will improve299the selection of Alaska judicial candidates, and I want to300publicly thank all the Members of the Council who put time and301effort into over the last year.302    When I first met Aaron, I was impressed by his integrity,303his respect for the rule of law, and his deep commitment to304public service, which also includes military service. Alaska305has more veterans per capita than any other State in the306country, and Aaron is one of those proud Alaska veterans. He307served in security forces in the U.S. Air Force after 9-11,308deploying in the Middle East and around the globe to protect309airfields and airmen. His legal experience is broad and deep310and Alaska focused. After receiving his juris doctorate from311Gonzaga University School of Law, he came back home to serve as312a law clerk for Alaska Superior Court Judge, Michael Spaan. He313went on to serve as an assistant district attorney for the314Anchorage District Attorney's Office where he prosecuted315serious criminal cases, including homicides and sex crimes.316Alaska is a great State and my colleagues have heard me brag317about it many, many times, but one thing we are not proud of in318our State is our very high rates of sexual assault and domestic319violence. It's a scourge on our State. Aaron's experience in320prosecuting these cases and working closely with victims will321be a huge asset to the Federal court in Alaska.322    Alaska is a unique State with many Federal laws that323specifically focus on our uniqueness: the Trans-Alaska Pipeline324Authorization Act, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, the325Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. These are326massive, complex laws exclusively focused on Alaska. Even more327recent laws, like the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the 2020328CARES Act, and the recent budget reconciliation bill signed329into law by President Trump in July, have entire sections in330the Federal law focused on Alaska. All of these laws have331significant and important promises and commitments made by the332Congress to Alaskans and our Alaska Native people, but what has333been a pattern for decades is that Federal agencies charged334with carrying out these laws often ignore these commitments to335Alaskans. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said it recently336and best in the two recent cases before the Supreme Court337called Sturgeon I and Sturgeon II. Both were decided 9-to-0 by338the U.S. Supreme Court in Alaska's favor in analyzing ANILCA339and ANCSA, the statutes I just cited above. Justice Kagan340concluded: ``ANILCA and other Federal laws reflect the simple341truth that Alaska is often the exception, not the rule, and is342very different from the rest of the country in terms of laws.''343    For a Federal judge in Alaska, it' is imperative that he or344she have a deep understanding of these Federal laws and their345application. Aaron definitely does. He has been an assistant346attorney general in both the Civil and Criminal Divisions in347the Department of Law for over 10 years. He is currently the348senior assistant attorney general in the Natural Resources349Section of the Alaska Department of Law. He is the primary350litigation counsel on anything to do from fisheries, water351rights, and access to Federal lands. Aaron is a lifelong352Alaskan. He knows and understands our great State and the353Federal laws that reflect on Alaska. I think he will be a great354Federal judge. I urge his nomination be sent to the Senate355floor with positive votes from all the Members of this356Committee. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. It's an honor to357introduce Aaron.358    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Now Senator359Cornyn.360361            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN,362             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS363364    Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's hard to365improve on Senator Cruz's introduction of Nick Ganjei, but I'm366going to say a few nice words about him.367    First of all, congratulations, Nick, to you and your368family. I know they are very proud of this great day. I'm369always happy to see more Texans represented on the Federal370bench, and, as Senator Cruz pointed out, Mr. Ganjei is a highly371accomplished lawyer, having served as a Federal prosecutor in372multiple districts, including as interim U.S. attorney in the373Southern District of Texas, the district into which now he will374be an Article III judge after his confirmation. During his time375as a prosecutor, he worked on important topics, like stemming376the tide of illegal immigration, combating human trafficking377and drug trafficking, and protecting children from malicious378offenders.379    His impressive legal credentials, paired with his extensive380experience as a prosecutor and his longstanding dedication to381advancing the rule of law in Texas and around the country,382making him an excellent addition to the Federal bench. So,383again, Nick, congratulations on your nomination. I look forward384to supporting your confirmation both here and on the floor of385the U.S. Senate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.386    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Now Senator387Boozman.388389                STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,390           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS391392    Senator Boozman. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Senator393Durbin, for holding this very important hearing today, and good394morning to my distinguished colleagues that serve on this395difficult Committee. It's an honor to be here with my friend396and colleague from the State of Arkansas, Senator Tom Cotton,397to introduce President Trump's nominee to serve as judge on the398United States District Court for the Western District of399Arkansas. I would also like to say hello to his family and400friends who are in attendance to support him, and we're very401happy to have them.402    A native of Harrison, Arkansas, Clay is a graduate of403Arkansas State University and the University of Arkansas Law404School. After graduating, Clay served as a deputy prosecuting405attorney for Benton County where his work ethic and leadership406elevated him to division chief. He then transitioned to the407U.S. Attorney's Office of the Western District of Arkansas and408has almost 2 decades there marked by extensive and impressive409accomplishments. His experience at the U.S. Attorney's office410includes stints as an assistant United States attorney, rising411to deputy criminal chief, and then criminal chief, then as412first assistant United States attorney, and eventually serving413as the United States attorney since January 2020.414    Throughout his career, Clay has earned the respect of his415colleagues, law enforcement partners, and the communities he416has served for his integrity, his professionalism, and417leadership. He has built a reputation as a principled418prosecutor who approaches every case with steady judgment,419fairness, and unwavering commitment to the rule of law. I know420he will approach each case put before him with the same421dedication and intellect that he has demonstrated throughout422his career. His expertise and temperament will undoubtedly423serve him well as a judge, which is why Senator Cotton and I424applaud President Trump for selecting him to fill this post.425It's clear he's not only qualified, but extremely well suited426for the role. I strongly support his nomination and urge my427colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Senator Grassley.428    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Boozman. Now Senator429Cotton.430431                 STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COTTON,432           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS433434    Senator Cotton. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Senator435Durbin, and Members of the Judiciary Committee. Good morning.436I'm pleased to join Senator Boozman today to introduce a civil437servant and a fellow Arkansan, Mr. David Clay Fowlkes. I'd438first like to thank Clay for his many years of public service439and for agreeing to continue this service as the President's440nominee to be a United States district judge for the Western441District of Arkansas. I would also like to thank his family who442are joining him here today, and thank them for their support443and encouragement throughout this process.444    As an accomplished prosecutor with experience handling445cases ranging from misdemeanors to murders, Clay has a lengthy446track record that underscores his respect for the rule of law.447Upon graduating from the University of Arkansas School of Law448and after serving in the Benton County Prosecuting Attorney's449Office, he began working at the United States Attorney's Office450in the Western District. Clay has spent nearly 2 decades in451this U.S. Attorney's Office, serving as the assistant U.S.452attorney, the criminal chief, and now as the U.S. attorney for453the Western District.454    Under his leadership, the office has prioritized safety and455law enforcement. Specifically, Clay has started a response456team, alongside Federal and State agents, to curb fentanyl457distribution, investigate every drug poisoning death, and hold458drug dealers accountable. In addition to his efforts to crack459down on illicit drug trafficking, Clay has also placed special460emphasis on keeping kids safe and allowing them to live their461childhoods to the fullest. Thanks to his leadership and462efforts, his office has prosecuted more than 3 times the463national average of child abuse and exploitation cases. Clay464has also been recognized with numerous awards for his465accomplishments throughout his career. These include the Hope466Coalition Excellence in Law Enforcement Award and a recognition467from the DEA for outstanding efforts in drug trafficking468prosecutions.469    Again, I'd like to thank him for his many years of working470to get criminals off the streets and to keep Arkansas471communities safe. I strongly support his nomination to be the472next United States district judge for the Western District of473Arkansas, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank474you.475    Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Cotton. Now will the476three nominees please come to the table, and before you sit477down, I would like to have you repeat the oath. Okay. Are you478ready?479    Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before480the Committee will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but481the truth so help you God?482    [Witnesses are sworn in.]483    Chairman Grassley. Each of you've answered in the484affirmative. Thank you.485    Now, we'll start with Mr. Fowlkes. Please sit down. This is486your opportunity to speak, anything you want to say to the487Committee, but also your opportunity to introduce family and488friends, whatever the case might be, in your respective roles.489So, proceed, Mr. Fowlkes.490491  STATEMENT OF DAVID CLAY FOWLKES, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED492   STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS493494    Mr. Fowlkes. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. As you've heard,495my name is Clay Fowlkes. I'm currently serving as the United496States attorney in the Western District of Arkansas. I want to497begin by thanking the Committee for your time and attention to498this matter today. Thank you especially to Senator Grassley and499Ranking Member Durbin, but thank you to every Member of the500Committee for your attention today and for the opportunity to501speak to you here today.502    I want to also thank President Trump for this nomination.503This is not only the honor of my lifetime to be nominated for504this and the highest honor of my career, but it also exceeds my505wildest expectations for my career and for my life, and I'm506deeply grateful and thankful to President Trump for his support507and for his nomination. I want to also thank Senator Boozman508and Senator Cotton for their kind words of introduction and for509their support for this nomination and throughout this process.510I also want to thank them and give them my deepest gratitude511for their commitment to making Arkansas a better place for our512citizens.513    Before I begin with introducing my family, I also want to514take a moment and thank God for this opportunity as well.515There's no question in my mind that I would not be here today516speaking with this distinguished Committee if it weren't for517his strong hand of intervention my behalf. As it says in John5183:27, ``Man can receive not even one thing unless it's given to519him from heaven,'' and I'm so grateful for his blessings. I'm520also so thankful that my family is able to join me here today.521I'm joined by my wonderful, beautiful wife of 23 years, Brianne522Fowlkes. Not only has she done an amazing job raising our523family, but she also is a very skilled and talented registered524nurse and works at a hospital in Northwest Arkansas. Her skills525as a nurse are only surpassed by her skills as a mom, and God526has blessed us with three amazing children who I'm also proud527to say are joining us here today. My son, Wit, is 17, and our528twins, Adelynn and Asher, are both 12. They all three exceed at529academics and sports and playing in the band back home in530Western Arkansas.531    I'm also joined by my parents today, David and Karen Sue532Fowlkes, both of Jonesboro, Arkansas. I'm so grateful that they533are here today to support me, but I'm also grateful for the534many sacrifices that they made for my sister and I in raising535us. They were careful to raise us according to God's word and536his will, but they also instilled in both my sister and I a537strong work ethic from a very young age, and I'm so thankful538for both of them. My dad retired after 40 years of service with539the United States Army and the United States Department of540Agriculture. Senator Grassley, he'd be happy to talk to you541about soybeans and corn anytime, and so I'm so grateful that542they are here today in support of this.543    I'm also very blessed to have the most amazing in-laws, who544are also here to support me today, Danny and Linda Pridmore545from Jonesboro, Arkansas. I'm so grateful for their unending546support of our family and so thankful that they are here today.547I see that Senator Kennedy has stepped out, but they both read548Senator Kennedy's book and are enormous admirers of his,549despite the Arkansas-Louisiana rivalry. I'm also joined by550several friends here in the audience today and other family551members, and I'm so grateful for all of them for their support.552I'm also incredibly grateful for the many friends and family553members back home in Western Arkansas who are praying for me554this morning and have expressed their support for me.555    I want to end by just saying that I'm incredibly grateful556for the men and women of the United States Attorney's Office in557Western Arkansas. It's my honor and privilege to serve558alongside them. I try to begin every day with the goal of559thinking about what can I do today to make Arkansas a better560and a safer place for our citizens, and I know that every561member of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Western Arkansas shares562that goal and shares the commitment that they have expressed563over and over again to making Arkansas a better and a safer564place. I'm so grateful to them for their support and to be able565to serve alongside them. Thank you, Senator Grassley.566    Chairman Grassley. Thank you Mr. Fowlkes. Now Mr. Ganjei.567568 STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS JON GANJEI, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED569    STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS570571    Mr. Ganjei. Thank you, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member572Durbin, for scheduling this hearing this morning. Of course, I573would like to thank President Trump for the great honor of this574nomination, but I'd also like to thank Senator Cruz and Cornyn575for their very generous introductions and thank them both for576their recommendation of me to the White House, as well as their577support throughout the confirmation process.578    Sixty-four years ago, my father came to this country with579nothing but his life savings of $100 and a deep abiding faith580in the American Dream. He started off working as a busboy and,581later, hand drying cars at a carwash. He eventually moved West582where he met my mother, herself the child of immigrants,583growing up without hot water or indoor plumbing in a dusty584Wyoming mining town. They are both here this morning. Today,585just one generation later, their son sits before the world's586greatest deliberative body being considered for a lifetime587appointment to the Federal bench. In very few countries would588something like this be possible, and nowhere else but America589would something like this be a common occurrence. This country590has given me and my family the gift of incalculable value, and591I've sought to repay this debt, to the extent it can be repaid,592through a lifetime of public service, the next chapter of which593will hopefully be as a United States district court judge.594    Thank you for your time. I greatly appreciate the595opportunity to speak to you this morning and look forward to596answering your questions.597    Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now Mr. Peterson.598599  STATEMENT OF AARON CHRISTIAN PETERSON, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS600    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA601602    Mr. Peterson. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin,603Members of the Committee, thank you for scheduling this604hearing. I am thrilled to be here. I want to thank President605Trump for giving me the honor of this nomination. It truly is606the professional honor of a lifetime, and I want to thank607Senator Sullivan both for his support throughout this process608and for that very kind introduction. I'd also like to thank609Senator Murkowski for her support during this process.610    I want to recognize some of the people who have traveled611here to support me, first and foremost, my brilliant and612beautiful wife, Kadra. We've been married over 21 years, and613she's been with me every step of the way. I definitely would614not be anywhere near this opportunity without her unwavering615love, patience, and support. She's supported me throughout my616career while pursuing her own very demanding careers as a math617teacher and as a mother to our three children, our 12-year-old618daughter and our 9-year-old twins. I want to thank her for all619the sacrifices that she has made to make this a possibility.620And I also want to thank Kadra's sister, Reagan, for watching621our kids while we're here. Good luck, Reagan.622    My father also traveled here from Alaska, and he wouldn't623have missed this. He's been at every important life event for624all of his children and his grandchildren. My father moved to625Alaska from Southern California in 1975. He planned to stay for626a few months and have an adventure, and he's been there for 50627years. And fortunately, my mother agreed to go to Alaska with628him also from Southern California, and I thank God every day629that they chose to live there and that I got to be born and630raised in the Last Frontier. Unfortunately, my mother couldn't631travel here today, but I know she's extremely proud watching632back home in Eagle River. My sister, Lindsey, also came here633and is at the hearing, and my uncle, U.S. Army Lieutenant634Colonel, retired, Larry Peterson is also here.635    On a professional level, I want to thank Judge Michael636Spaan, for whom I had the privilege of clerking. Judge Spaan,637it was truly an honor and it was a pleasure to work for him.638When I told him I was thinking about this opportunity, he had639been the U.S. attorney for many years in Alaska and he640encouraged me, and I want to thank him for that encouragement.641Judge Spaan approached his work diligently with humility and642always respecting every litigant that appeared before him. I643took so much away from that clerkship, and I've carried those644lessons with me every day since.645    And finally, I want to thank Attorney General Steve Cox and646all of the fantastic people that I've had the pleasure to work647with over the years at the Alaska Department of Law. It has648been an honor and a pleasure to serve my home State alongside649all of those extremely dedicated public servants. I welcome the650Committee's questions.651    Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now we'll have questions, and652I'll start out, and I'm going to start with you, Mr. Ganjei.653    The Committee has received multiple letters from criminal654defense and civil rights attorneys who's litigated against you.655Each of them praised your professionalism and the fidelity to656the law. Several Members of this Committee and their staffs657have also worked with you during your time on Senator Cruz's658chief counsel, both as a prosecutor and as a Senate staffer.659You've had to work with people who disagreed with you to serve660the American people. So, this may seem like a softball661question, but your answer will kinda tell us how you will662approach it as a person with a robe. What lessons will you take663from these experiences to the bench?664    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think the single most important665thing in the way that the court treats any litigant is to treat666them with respect, not only treat them with personal respect,667but let them understand that you're taking their case668seriously. I think it's tempting to treat a case maybe as a669routine matter. You see, you know, hundreds of these, you know,670this specific type of case a year, but to the litigants in671front of you, it's the single most important case of their672life. And so, if fortunate enough to be confirmed as a district673judge, I would approach each legal dispute with care, with674attention, and I want everyone to walk out of that courtroom,675they may not win, but they would feel that they have been given676their day in court.677    Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Now to Mr. Fowlkes. You've678had a long career as a local and Federal prosecutor, even679including being a U.S. attorney. You've received many awards680for your service, and you've tried over 20 cases to verdict,681I've been told. Can you explain your judicial philosophy and682how your experience as a prosecutor has prepared you to serve683as a judge?684    Mr. Fowlkes. Thank you, Senator. My experience as a685prosecutor has meant everything in preparation for this moment.686I have learned deep and lasting lessons from every single judge687that I was able to practice in front of, from meticulous688preparation, to understanding the case and the law, to treating689parties with respect at every opportunity, and I have learned690something from every single judge that I have tried cases in691front of or practice in front of that I would intend to take692with me and further my career, if I'm fortunate enough to be693confirmed by the Senate. As far as my judicial philosophy, I694agree with what my colleague, Mr. Ganjei, said. It is so695important for a judge to be the most prepared individual in the696courtroom, and it's so important for a judge to correctly697identify the applicable law and to correctly find the proper698facts and the true facts, apply the law to those facts, and699make a decision that is independent and that is fair and just,700and that demonstrates deep respect for the law. And I think701that would be the judicial philosophy that I've learned702throughout my career as a prosecutor that I would take with me703to the bench.704    Chairman Grassley. Thank you.705    Mr. Fowlkes. Thank you, Senator.706    Chairman Grassley. Now to Mr. Peterson. You've spent nearly70715 years in public service at the Alaska Department of Law. You708now serve as assistant attorney general in the Natural Resource709Section. Please tell us how your career has prepared you for710the unique type of cases that you would preside over as a711Federal judge in Alaska.712    Mr. Peterson. Well, Chairman Grassley, as Senator Sullivan713mentioned, Alaska has many Federal statutes that are specific714to Alaska. They're large, important pieces of legislation that715are critical to the success of Alaska, and one of those that he716mentioned was the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation717Act. I've litigated that act specifically for several years.718I've a deep familiarity with the laws that are specific to719Alaska and that are unique and come before district judges in720Alaska, and where really nobody else in the country would have721any reason to know much about them. So, the deep familiarity722that I have with those laws, with my history of litigating723them, I think, prepared me for many of the cases that will come724before the district court and also my career as a prosecutor.725    I traveled all across Alaska prosecuting cases, serious726felonies in Anchorage and cases all across the State, from727Juneau, to Dutch Harbor, to Kenai, to Delta Junction, even728appearing in Utqiagvik on the Arctic Ocean for a sentencing729hearing. So, I have a wide cross-section of experience in the730arenas that are likely to come before the district court, and,731hopefully, I'll be able to preside over those matters if I'm732fortunate enough to be confirmed.733    Chairman Grassley. Thank you all very much. Now Senator734Hirono.735    Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to each of736you and to your families. Good morning.737    I ask the following two initial questions of all nominees738who come before any of the Committees on which I sit relevant739to the fitness to serve, so I'll ask these questions, and I'd740like to ask all of you to respond individually, starting with741Mr. Fowlkes, and then we will just go right down the line.742Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted743requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical744harassment or assault of a sexual nature?745    Mr. Fowlkes. No, Senator.746    Mr. Ganjei. No, Senator.747    Mr. Peterson. No, Senator.748    Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered749into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?750    Mr. Fowlkes. No, Senator.751    Mr. Ganjei. No, Senator.752    Mr. Peterson. No, Senator.753    Senator Hirono. For Mr. Ganjei, you recently reposted on754your official U.S. attorney X account a homeland security post755that compared capturing undocumented immigrants to a Pokemon756game using the game's catch phrase, ``Gotta catch `em all.''757And you reposted this video of ICE officers catching immigrants758set to the Pokemon theme song, and you commented, ``Give759their''--meaning Homeland Security--``social media guy a760raise.'' It's troubling enough, problematic enough that all of761us are seeing videos of ICE agents masked, no identifying marks762or anything, engaging in raids in communities, sowing fear and763chaos. And to those individuals who are the subject of these764raids, do you think that being portrayed as a game, do you765think that's appropriate? Do you think that it's appropriate to766repost this kind of a video knowing that you are going to be767sitting as a judge possibly having some of these people come768before you? Do you find it amusing?769    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my understanding of that video is that770specifically is about ICE's Worst of the Worst Initiative. They771specifically cite, I think, eight or nine individuals in that,772one convicted of murder, one convicted of manslaughter, one773convicted of unspecified homicide, several child sex----774    Senator Hirono. Excuse me. So, actually, we know that the775ICE agents are not just going after the worst of the worst.776That is what they are supposed to be doing, but we know that777there are U.S. citizens who are also being caught up. We know778that there is fear in many communities because of these raids,779and I'm asking you whether you consider this a source of780amusement to the point where you would repost this kind of a781video. You can just answer ``yes'' or ``no.''782    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, again, the video, I understand it was783specifically talking about the Worst of the Worst Initiative,784and so, you know, having murderers and those that----785    Senator Hirono. Okay.786    Mr. Ganjei [continuing]. Sexually prey on children off the787street----788    Senator Hirono. No, this is not----789    Mr. Ganjei [continuing]. Is a good thing and----790    Senator Hirono. Excuse me. This is not an opportunity for791you to basically toe the regime's line. Let me go on because,792obviously, I do not consider it appropriate what the ICE agents793are doing, sowing fear and chaos through our communities, to794the point where communities are rising up and protesting and795doing everything they can to protect members in their796community. Do you, Mr. Ganjei, agree that the Constitution797provides due process rights to all persons, regardless of798citizenship status?799    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, due process applies to everyone.800    Senator Hirono. And as a judge, you would apply due process801to everyone regardless of whether they're U.S. citizens or not.802    Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Your Honor.803    Senator Hirono. Okay.804    Mr. Ganjei. I'm sorry. Yes, Senator.805    Senator Hirono. Thank you. Throughout your career as a806prosecutor--last question--you condemned attacks on law807enforcement officers, and you even issued a warning in your808district saying, ``Let it be known, if you lay a hand on an809officer, the Southern District of Texas will do whatever it can810to put you in Federal prison, et cetera.'' So, you are very811much against attacks on police officers. Did the rioters on812January 6 attack law enforcement officers?813    Mr. Ganjei. Senator----814    Senator Hirono. Yes or no.815    Mr. Ganjei. I'm sorry?816    Senator Hirono. Yes or no.817    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my understanding from news reports is818that there were some.819    Senator Hirono. I'm sorry. What?820    Mr. Ganjei. My understanding from----821    Senator Hirono. Did they attack law enforcement officers or822not on January 6?823    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my understanding from news reporting824is that yes.825    Senator Hirono. And so, you also said that, ``People who826attack law enforcement officers are attacking the American827system of justice.'' So, would you say that the rioters on828January 6, who, by the way, were all pardoned by President829Trump, were they attacking the American way of justice?830    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I can't offer my opinion----831    Senator Hirono. Yes or no.832    Mr. Ganjei [continuing]. As to a matter of public833controversy.834    Senator Hirono. Well, I would say that since you say that835people who attack police officers are attacking the American836system of justice, I would say the January 6 rioters fit that837profile or mold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.838    Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Kennedy, I839would like to enter into the record three letters of support840for Mr. Ganjei, [off mic] one from a criminal defense attorney,841one from a public defender, and one from a civil rights842attorney. Each represented criminal defendants in cases before843Mr. Ganjei. All three letters praise his competence, ethics,844and professionalism as a Federal prosecutor. One of the letters845described the nominee as ``the human being that we should all846strive to become and the attorney most who practice hope to847be.'' All these records have similar sentiments.848    Without objection, these three records will be placed in849the report.850    Chairman Grassley. Senator Kennedy, and then who's ever on851the Republican side, I've got to go up to Finance, and I'll be852back, so just take your turn, and I think I'll be back before853the meeting's over.854    Senator Kennedy [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.855Ganjei, how long did you work for Senator Cruz?856    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I worked for Senator Cruz for 3 years.857    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Did you work closely with him?858    Mr. Ganjei. I would say so, Senator, yes.859    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Is it true that Senator Cruz can860burp the alphabet backward?861    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I've been instructed not to reveal862that.863    [Laughter.]864    Senator Kennedy. Is it true that growing up, Senator Cruz865had an imaginary friend who his parents actually preferred?866    [Laughter.]867    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I have no such knowledge.868    Senator Kennedy. Okay. What article of the Constitution869calls for checks and balances?870    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think checks and balances is871inherent in the first three articles of the Constitution, which872gives to all of them different powers and responsibilities.873    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Mr. Peterson, welcome. Tell me how874you amend the U.S. Constitution.875    Mr. Peterson. Senator, you amend the U.S. Constitution876pursuant to the procedure found in Article V.877    Senator Kennedy. Could you speak into that mic, please,878sir?879    Mr. Peterson. Sorry, Senator. The Constitution is amended880pursuant to the procedure in Article V, and that is, a two-881thirds vote of both the House and the Senate and then882ratification by three-quarters of the States. There's also a883constitutional convention method, but that's never been used.884    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Mr. Fowlkes, how are you?885    Mr. Fowlkes. I'm doing well.886    Senator Kennedy. What's the warrant requirement?887    Mr. Fowlkes. The warrant requirement states that any person888who is going to be arrested should have a warrant. The police889should seek a warrant for that person to arrest them. There are890exceptions to the warrant requirement, including exigent891circumstances, which are usually followed up in Arkansas with a892probable cause complaint and an affidavit and warrant in893support of that.894    Senator Kennedy. What about to search someone? Do you have895to have a warrant?896    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, that is----897    Senator Kennedy. Well, let me amend that. Does the warrant898requirement apply to search and seizure?899    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes. According to the Fourth Amendment to the900United States Constitution, there shall be no unreasonable901searches and seizures without a warrant. There are obviously902exceptions to that as well, including the Carroll Ross Doctrine903for movable objects, exigent circumstances when time simply904doesn't permit to be able to seek a warrant from a magistrate905or a judge, but yes.906    Senator Kennedy. Could Arkansas decide that it doesn't want907to follow the Federal rule, that it wants to require a warrant908for all arrests and all searches and seizures with no909exceptions?910    Mr. Fowlkes. They certainly could, Senator. However, as a911prosecutor for many years, I understand that those exemptions912to the warrant requirement are important for public safety and913for law enforcement safety.914    Senator Kennedy. Okay. How could Arkansas do that?915    Mr. Fowlkes. Arkansas could pass a law with the State916legislature to say that a warrant is required for every arrest917that's made throughout the State of Arkansas, and obviously,918you know, that would be subject to challenges in both State and919Federal court.920    Senator Kennedy. And if Arkansas did that, why doesn't the921supremacy clause overrule Arkansas?922    Mr. Fowlkes. It certainly would be an argument if that was923challenged in Federal court.924    Senator Kennedy. Well, who would win?925    Mr. Fowlkes. I'm not sure without knowing more facts about926how the statute was drafted and being able to examine, exactly927you know, the type of legislative interpretation that goes928along with that. So, without more facts, I don't think I can--929--930    Senator Kennedy. Well, let me give you these facts. You931recited correctly the warrant requirement and the exceptions932both for arrest and search and seizure. Suppose the Arkansas933legislature said, we appreciate the advice, but we're not going934to file it. We're going to require a warrant for both arrests935and for searches and seizures, okay, and somebody challenged936that under the supremacy clause. Who would win?937    Mr. Fowlkes. I'm not sure I've ever thought about that in938depth, Senator, but I think it would be a strong challenge to939that State law, and I think it would be a----940    Senator Kennedy. What if Arkansas construed its State941Constitution to require a warrant for both arrest and search942and seizure?943    Mr. Fowlkes. I think it would be the same analysis, whether944it was a law that was passed by the State legislature or an945amendment to the Constitution.946    Senator Kennedy. Why couldn't Arkansas--You ever heard of947the adequate and independent State ground doctrine?948    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.949    Senator Kennedy. Why wouldn't the adequate and independent950State ground doctrine apply there?951    Mr. Fowlkes. That certainly would be an argument that one952of the parties could make in support of that Arkansas State953law. And again, I think it would go back to legislative954analysis and determining all the factors that go into that as955to whether that law would withstand the scrutiny from the956court.957    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, Counselors. Senator958Whitehouse.959    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you Chairman. Welcome to the960witnesses.961    Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry. What did you call me?962    Senator Whitehouse. Chairman.963    Senator Kennedy. Thank you. I appreciate that.964    Senator Whitehouse. Yes. Well, you're the acting Chair,965aren't you? You got the gavel.966    You all, if you are confirmed, will become Members of the967Federal Judiciary. You all will become Members of the Federal968Judiciary at a time when there's a particularly difficult969threat environment for judges. A person threatening a judge has970committed a crime, correct?971    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.972    Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Senator.973    Mr. Peterson. Yes, Senator.974    Senator Whitehouse. And the criminal liability related to975that threat could extend beyond the utterer of the threat. Is976that also correct?977    Mr. Fowlkes. I think that would depend strongly on the978facts and circumstances, the nature of the threat.979    Senator Whitehouse. Oh, absolutely, but there are facts and980circumstances in which criminal liability for threatening a981judge could extend beyond the utterer of the threat to982individuals who may have orchestrated or, in other ways,983directed that the threat be uttered against the judge. All984three of you agree with that?985    Mr. Fowlkes. And I think my answer to that would be that it986just depends strongly on the facts and circumstances of that987situation.988    Senator Whitehouse. Very much, but legally, it's a very989open route that could happen if the facts and circumstances are990there, correct?991    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.992    Mr. Ganjei. I would agree with my colleague, Senator.993    Mr. Peterson. I agree with my colleagues.994    Senator Whitehouse. And let's say that you are now a judge995and you are on the receiving end of that threat. Would you996expect that the Marshal Service, or if the Marshal Service has997handed the investigative piece of this over to the FBI, the FBI998would take a look at not only the utterer of the threat, but999also evidence that there may be other parties complicit or1000culpable behind the utterer of the threat?1001    Mr. Fowlkes. Senator, there's been some very recent case1002law on the analysis of threats both against individuals and1003against Federal officials, and I would hope that the1004investigating officers and the investigating AUSAs would look1005closely at those factors and would look at also the facts and1006circumstances of the individual involved and the circumstances1007surrounding that. And so, I think my answer to that is, I would1008hope that the U.S. Marshals, the Federal Protection Service,1009and the AUSAs who are assigned to that case would look closely1010at all of those factors and make an appropriate determination.1011    Senator Whitehouse. Do you all agree that it would be wrong1012to categorically refuse to investigate behind the utterer no1013matter what the evidence?1014    Mr. Fowlkes. I think I'd revert back to my original answer1015that it just depends very strongly on the facts and1016circumstances of the threat, and whether it's analyzed as a1017true threat or whether other individuals are involved in making1018that threat as well.1019    Senator Whitehouse. Which means that if there were such1020facts and circumstances, it would be wrong for Federal1021investigators, as a categorical matter, to refuse to1022investigate that. There is a possible avenue of investigation,1023and to foreclose that would not be right. Do I understand that1024correctly?1025    Mr. Fowlkes. I think so, Senator. My original answer1026remains the same, that I would hope they analyze all the facts.1027    Senator Whitehouse. Yes, highly dependent on facts and1028circumstances, but depending on the facts and circumstances, it1029would be wrong to foreclose investigating that at all as a1030categorical matter. Do you agree as well, Mr.----1031    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I agree with my colleague. I think1032it's a highly factual circumstance, and I don't think I can1033offer an opinion as to the scenario you presented.1034    Senator Whitehouse. Except that, you know, every criminal1035investigation ends up being a highly factual circumstance. And1036if there's an avenue of investigation and of criminal1037liability, that should be investigated where the facts and1038circumstances justify. It's a fairly straightforward1039proposition. You're not contesting that, are you?1040    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my understanding of your question,1041whether every avenue of investigation should be pursued, I1042think that's highly dependent on the specific case. Maybe an1043avenue of investigation is----1044    Senator Whitehouse. Are there some cases in which an avenue1045of investigation that's supported by the evidence should not be1046pursued?1047    Mr. Ganjei. Well, Senator, I think the ``supported by the1048evidence'' part of it's the key, and I think that----1049    Senator Whitehouse. That's why my question was asked the1050way it was, which is, why would you want an investigative1051agency to categorically refuse to investigate legitimate1052avenues of investigation if the evidence, if the facts and1053circumstances justify it? You're not suggesting that that's a1054good idea, are you?1055    Mr. Ganjei. I'm sorry. I didn't understand your question,1056Senator.1057    Senator Whitehouse. Never mind. My time has expired.1058    Senator Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Senator1059Moody.1060    Senator Moody. Thank you, Chairman Kennedy.1061    Senator Kennedy. I love the sound of that, ``Chairman.''1062    [Laughter.]1063    Senator Moody. And thank you to our nominees.1064    Senator Kennedy. Gives me goosebumps.1065    [Laughter.]1066    Senator Moody. Thank you to our nominees. Thank you to your1067families for being here today. This is certainly a big day for1068your loved ones, but you as well. Anytime someone in your1069family commits to public service, that demands the entire1070family's attention and often support. Certainly as someone who1071grew up in a family of public service and now in one myself, we1072are thankful to you for being here and supporting these folks.1073And I was so struck by our nominees, they all share one thing1074in common. At one point, either now or in the past, they were1075all prosecutors, working to ensure that the laws passed by1076lawmakers on behalf of the people, the people's laws were1077faithfully enforced. And that is so important to our carefully1078balanced separation of powers, the way our Government is meant1079to work, so thank you for your prior service. I think it speaks1080volumes and who you are as people and your commitment to1081ensuring, not only the strength of our constitutional1082framework, but the strength and safety of our communities, and1083I, for one, am comforted by that, that we have nominees of your1084caliber being put up for these positions.1085    I want to ask you about the phenomenon that we have been1086seeing around the Nation where prosecutors of jurisdictions are1087saying, ``I don't care what the people's law says, I don't like1088the law, and I don't think it should be a law, and, therefore,1089I'm not going to prosecute it.'' What is your opinion, Mr.1090Ganjei, on what that does to the constitutional framework and1091how the people's Government is supposed to work?1092    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I don't want to speak about the1093specific instance you described or a matter of public1094controversy, but I could say that as a Government official, an1095unelected mid-level executive branch official, it's not up to1096me to decide what laws, you know, should be prosecuted or not1097be prosecuted. I think the policy decisions are best left to1098the branches accountable to the people.1099    Senator Moody. And just in general, not specifically, Mr.1100Fowlkes, how important it is do we have top prosecutors of1101jurisdictions enforcing the people's laws?1102    Mr. Fowlkes. I think that that's very important. Obviously,1103we've have all taken an oath to enforce the law as they are1104written, and I'm very proud of our record in Western Arkansas1105with our case intake and with the prosecution of a variety of1106criminal offenses in Western Arkansas. But I also share what1107Mr. Ganjei, my colleague, noted that I can't speak specifically1108to any particular prosecutors, so.1109    Senator Moody. And I'm not going to speak specifically, but1110the phenomenon of having top prosecutors or top law enforcement1111officials say, ``Personally, I'm not going to do what the1112people want me to do because I don't agree with it,'' that1113fundamentally disrupts our system of government. Would you1114agree?1115    Mr. Fowlkes. I agree, and I think back to some of the jury1116trials that I've handled and what we've asked jurors to do,1117which is, even if you don't agree with the law or you don't1118believe it should be a law, can you faithfully apply that to1119the facts and circumstances of each individual case, and I1120think if we ask jurors to do that, it's perfectly acceptable to1121expect prosecutors and elected----1122    Senator Moody. And so, let me stop you there and talk about1123the judicial branch. I was a former judge. I come from a long1124line of judges. I've been a prosecutor like yourselves, a1125lawyer.1126    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.1127    Senator Moody. And I'm really concerned right now that the1128judicial branch has a PR crisis, a rightfully labeled,1129probably, PR crisis because we have many district court judges1130around the Nation that are more interested in wearing a blue1131jersey than a black robe. And based on my fundamental belief,1132we have to have impartial judges that will faithfully apply the1133laws that are given to them. I believe this, just as the former1134situation I described, fundamentally disrupts the careful1135balance of power as set forth in our Constitution. Would you1136agree, Mr. Fowlkes?1137    Mr. Fowlkes. I do agree, and I think it's----1138    Senator Moody. Do you agree, Mr. Ganjei?1139    Mr. Ganjei. I do, Senator.1140    Senator Moody. Would you agree, Mr. Peterson?1141    Mr. Peterson. Yes, Senator.1142    Senator Moody. And specifically, when you have district1143court judges running around to conferences suggesting, with no1144evidence or any circumstances to support it, that this1145administration or this President is going to violate court1146orders, or you have district court judges with no evidence at1147all making decisions that Senators even would destroy evidence,1148all of this undermines that fair and impartiality need that we1149have to have, our public has to have, in our judges. And I am1150terrified that some of the behavior that we have seen around1151the country is undermining the strength of our system, and I1152want to ask you, Mr. Ganjei, part of this is when judges issue1153nationwide injunctions. What is your belief in terms of a1154ceiling of relief that's available to a district court judge?1155    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I know the Supreme Court has spoken on1156this recently in the CASA case, that the relief should be one1157that would give the parties before it full relief, but that1158Congress did not authorize, otherwise, nationwide injunctions1159for district courts.1160    Senator Moody. And I see that my time has expired. Thank1161you.1162    Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Moody.1163Now Senator Blumenthal.1164    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all1165for being here, and thank you for your willingness to serve.1166    Mr. Ganjei, you have been a prosecutor, and you've1167repeatedly claimed that attacks on law enforcement are1168unacceptable, which I think we all can agree. You've also said1169that people who engage in attacks on law enforcement should be1170held accountable. You stated in a Department of Justice press1171release just last month, ``Those who attack law enforcement1172officers are attacking the American system of justice.'' In1173another release you said, ``Let it be known if you lay a hand1174on an officer, deputy, or a Federal agent, SDTX will do1175whatever it can to put you in Federal prison for as long as the1176law will allow. You've been warned.'' President Trump gave a1177blanket pardon to individuals who participated in the January11786, 2021, attack on the Capitol, and many of them were involved1179in assaults on law enforcement. I know that you've been asked1180briefly about this issue during your appearance here today, but1181let me just take a couple of examples.1182    Julian Khater sprayed U.S. Capitol police officer, Brian1183Sicknick, with pepper spray. Officer Sicknick died the next1184day. Khater admitted to this violence. He pleaded guilty to1185assaulting officers with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to1186more than 6\1/2\ years in prison for his crimes against law1187enforcement officers before he was pardoned by President Trump.1188So, my question to you is, do you support President Trump's1189pardon of Mr. Khater?1190    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I can't comment on the executive and1191the President's exercise of his enumerated constitutional1192powers or comment at all on an accorded branch's use of its1193enumerated constitutional powers, any more that I could comment1194on the House's use of the power of the purse. I am comfortable1195saying I abhor political violence of all kinds.1196    Senator Blumenthal. Well, this individual atrociously1197assaulted a Capitol Police officer, and you're unwilling to say1198whether you support a pardon that allowed him to go free1199without any record of a crime?1200    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, as a judicial nominee, it would be1201improper for me to wade into a public conflict like that and1202comment on the President's use of his pardon power or President1203Biden's commutation of people on death row. Those are issues1204that I think are improper for a judicial candidate to comment.1205    Senator Blumenthal. Well, I'm talking about violent assault1206on a police officer Ryan Nichols, for example. Ryan Nichols1207also pled guilty to assaulting law enforcement officers. He1208pushed the crowd against officers who were defending the door1209at the Capitol, and after the attack, he posted a video to1210Facebook where he said, ``I'm going to be violent now,'' and he1211said, ``If you want to know where Ryan Nichols stands, Ryan1212Nichols stands for violence.'' He was sentenced to more than 51213years in prison. President Trump pardoned him. What do you1214think is the reason that would justify that pardon?1215    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I wouldn't stand to speculate on the1216President's reasoning.1217    Senator Blumenthal. Well, do you support it?1218    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, again, I can't comment on a separate1219branch's exercise of its enumerated constitutional powers.1220    Senator Blumenthal. Are there any limits to what you would1221not support in terms of the pardon use by the President?1222    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, you stated any limits to what I would1223support. I'm stating that I cannot comment on President Trump's1224use of the pardon power or President Biden's use of the power1225of commutation for people on death row.1226    Senator Blumenthal. Well, I haven't asked you about1227President Biden's use of the pardon power, and for you to1228gratuitously talk about other uses of the pardon, I think, is1229simply meant to distract from this use of the pardon power with1230respect to these individuals who committed brutal assaults on1231police officers. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1232    Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Hawley, I have1233a letter here supporting Mr. Ganjei's nomination from a person,1234Ray Hunt, executive director of the Houston Police Officers1235Union. Mr. Hunt praised Mr. Ganjei's ``steadfast commitment to1236keeping our city safe,'' and his efforts to ``work hand in hand1237with local law enforcement to combat violent crime, reduce the1238flow of illegal firearms and narcotics, and hold dangerous1239offenders accountable.'' Without objection, that'll go in the1240record.1241    Chairman Grassley. Senator Hawley.1242    Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.1243Ganjei, I'll give you just some more time if you wanted to1244respond. Did you want to say something about President Biden's1245use of the commutation power?1246    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I was merely illustrating instances1247where the President exercises broad, unreviewable pardon power1248and commutation power, and I understand that President Joe1249Biden commuted the sentences of many people on Federal death1250row.1251    Senator Hawley. Violent offenders, I think, weren't they?1252    Mr. Ganjei. That is correct, my understanding.1253    Senator Hawley. Do you want to give him a grade on that?1254    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I wouldn't offer a grade on that.1255    Senator Hawley. Do you want to grade any President on their1256use of the constitutional authority?1257    Mr. Ganjei. No, Senator, I would not.1258    Senator Hawley. Is that within your purview? Would it be1259within your purview, should you be confirmed?1260    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, neither whether I should be confirmed1261or as a nominee would it be proper for me to comment on that1262use.1263    Senator Hawley. Let me ask each of you, if I could, I want1264to talk a little bit first about nationwide injunctions. I1265think Senator Moody was starting to ask you just a moment ago.1266I think this is a vital issue. If you were to be confirmed,1267tell me what you understand the scope of your equitable powers1268to be to grant injunctive relief. To whom could you grant it?1269Under what circumstances? I think this is an issue of vital,1270vital importance. It's been something that has been discussed1271on a bipartisan basis here. So, let me start with you, Mr.1272Fowlkes. Am I pronouncing your name correctly.1273    Mr. Fowlkes. Fowlkes.1274    Senator Hawley. Fowlkes?1275    Mr. Fowlkes. Just like ``a bunch of folks.'' Yes, sir.1276    Senator Hawley. Okay. Very good. Mr. Fowlkes, and then1277we'll go down the dais. Go ahead.1278    Mr. Fowlkes. As I understand it, the issue of injunctions1279and temporary restraining orders are controlled by the1280provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. And pursuant1281to that rule and the cases that have been interpreted of that1282rule, there's a series of factors that courts have typically1283considered in whether or not a temporary restraining order or1284an injunction is appropriate, and those begin with the1285likelihood of whether or not one of the parties, the moving1286party, will succeed at trial, the irreparable harm that may be1287possible if the order is not granted, the possibility of a1288public interest in that order and several orders----1289    Senator Hawley. All of that sounds correct. Is it your1290understanding, can you bind parties? Should you be confirmed,1291could you as a district court judge, could you bind parties who1292are not before you?1293    Mr. Fowlkes. It is a very developing area of the law, and1294my understanding is, is that power will be limited by the case1295law from the Supreme Court and also by the Federal Rules of1296Civil Procedure.1297    Senator Hawley. Well, tell me what you think the relevant1298case law from the court is. I assume you are talking about the1299CASA case----1300    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes, Senator.1301    Senator Hawley [continuing]. But tell me about it.1302    Mr. Fowlkes. In the CASA case, the Court determined that1303was a power that should be reserved to the Congress for a1304nationwide, you know, authority over certain issues, and I1305think it is modified our previous understanding of Federal Rule1306of Civil Procedure 65. And I think, again, it's a very1307developing area of the law, and it would be very fact1308determinative and very fact specific, but I think that going1309forward, it is an important case for every district court judge1310to keep in mind.1311    Senator Hawley. Well do you think that--are you telling me,1312as a district court judge, there are some instances as a1313district court judge where you could bind parties who are not1314before you?1315    Mr. Fowlkes. I think we're still understanding the Court's1316ruling in CASA, and we are still kind of developing procedures1317that go along with that, and so it would be highly unusual and1318certainly challengeable in court if something like that was----1319    Senator Hawley. Well, what's the basic rule that you1320understand the Supreme Court to have laid down on the CASA1321case? Let me ask it that way.1322    Mr. Fowlkes. The basic rule is that a nationwide injunction1323that enjoins people who aren't before the court would be1324exceeding the court's power in that respect.1325    Senator Hawley. Okay. Good. Mr. Ganjei, do you want to1326weigh in on this? How do you understand--what would your power1327be as a district court judge to bind parties not in front of1328you?1329    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, generally, I would not be able to bind1330parties, not in front of the court, but the goal for any1331injunction would be to give complete relief to the parties1332before the court.1333    Senator Hawley. Okay, which I think is the rule. I think1334you just stated the rule of the CASA case, correct?1335    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, yes.1336    Senator Hawley. So, in other words, the district courts.1337Senator Kennedy, here I am, I'm asking the questions and giving1338the answers, you know? I'm kind of----1339    Senator Kennedy. You're doing a great job.1340    Senator Hawley. Yes, thanks. It's really, I think, kind of1341defeating the point, though. It's like your bar exam, except1342for I'm giving the answers. I think the CASA case said that the1343equitable powers of the district court are limited to providing1344full relief to a plaintiff who is in front of the court1345properly, but nothing exceeding that. Is that your1346understanding, Mr. Ganjei? Have I got that correct?1347    Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Senator.1348    Senator Hawley. Okay. So, let's just talk about what that1349means in practice. I'll come to you for that, Mr. Peterson.1350What does that mean in practice in terms of the district1351court's equitable powers?1352    Mr. Peterson. Well, Senator, it means that the court has1353authority over the parties that are before it in the case, you1354know, the Supreme Court in Trump v. CASA, pointing out that1355nationwide injunctions don't flow from the Judiciary Act there,1356you know. The goal is to give complete relief to the parties1357before the court, and if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed,1358I would strive to achieve that.1359    Senator Hawley. And, you know, is it fair to say that1360because the adjunctive power is itself equitable, and our1361courts have said for centuries now that equity power is1362something that's got to be very, very closely monitored, I1363mean, because it's discretionary in many ways. It's difficult1364to pin down. It can be broadened out and used for many, many1365purposes. You've got to be very careful in the use of equitable1366powers. Is it safe to say that you would want to be very, very1367careful about any kind of a ruling that reaches out beyond1368plaintiffs in front of you? Even if it's necessary to make the1369plaintiffs in front of you whole, you'd want to be very careful1370about binding parties in any way who are not in front of the1371court.1372    Mr. Ganjei. Absolutely.1373    Senator Hawley. Yes. All right. I've got some more1374questions for each of you as it relates to sentencing, the1375purposes of sentencing, the sentencing guidelines, which I1376think are very important. My time's expired, so I'll give those1377to you in the written record. Congratulations again on your1378nominations.1379    Chairman Grassley. By the way, I have legislation in--I1380presume; I got several co-sponsors--on national injunctions.1381And I was with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee,1382and he also has legislation in on that. So, regardless of what1383the Supreme Court said, I think there's ways we can narrow it1384down even more.1385    Senator Hawley. And I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I think1386it's important we do it.1387    Chairman Grassley. Yes.1388    Senator Hawley. Absolutely.1389    Chairman Grassley. Senator Schiff is on his way. Senator1390Kennedy, did you have any other questions you want to ask or1391anything?1392    Senator Kennedy. Nope, I'm happy.1393    Chairman Grassley. Okay. I'm going to ask you folks----1394    Senator Kennedy. Can I be Chairman again?1395    [Laughter.]1396    Chairman Grassley. Out of courtesy to Senator Schiff, I1397should just hold in abeyance the continuation. I don't have any1398more questions, but----1399    Senator Hawley. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to ask1400another question if you----1401    Chairman Grassley. Please, go ahead.1402    Senator Hawley. Okay. I'm sure the nominees are ecstatic1403about that. Let me just--while we're are on this topic, I want1404to stay on the topic of nationwide injunctions for just a1405second. Let me just ask you this. If a district court were to1406recharacterize the injunction and say, ``Well, it's not an1407injunction per se, it's a temporary restraining order, and,1408therefore, the CASA case doesn't really apply. Therefore, you1409know, it's a whole different set of analysis.'' Is it your1410understanding that you could do that? In other words, is the1411temporary restraining order a get-out-of-jail free card? Is1412that a completely different set of circumstances, a completely1413different set of analysis? What's your understanding of how you1414can use TROs and how the CASA case relates to TROs? Let's start1415again with you, Mr. Fowlkes.1416    Mr. Fowlkes. Oh, I believe it's the same analysis and the1417same factors. The one that I was just about to get to before is1418the balance of equities, and I think that's where the CASA1419decision makes a direct impact on the factors for both a1420temporary restraining order and for a nationwide injunction.1421    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think the analysis would be the1422same. They are both equitable remedies.1423    Mr. Peterson. It's the same analysis, Senator.1424    Senator Hawley. Okay.1425    Chairman Grassley. Senator Schiff.1426    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you could give1427me one more moment?1428    Chairman Grassley. Yes. We won't take it off your 51429minutes.1430    [Laughter.]1431    Senator Schiff. Thank you.1432    [Brief pause.]1433    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Ganjei, you worked1434for professor and former deputy assistant attorney general,1435John Yoo. And I wanted to ask you, he recently wrote an op-ed1436in the Washington Post concerning the military strikes on1437shipping and raised an issue as to whether that was lawful, and1438let me ask you your thoughts as a legal and a constitutional1439matter. In the absence of congressional authorization to use1440force, in the absence of any declaration of war, are military1441attacks on ships suspected of drug trafficking lawful or1442constitutional?1443    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think that's a highly fact-specific1444situation, and if there were such strikes that were going to be1445challenged in court, there is a likelihood that it could come1446before me, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed, so I don't1447think I can offer an opinion that.1448    Senator Schiff. Well, can you offer an opinion on whether1449you believe that the War Powers Act is constitutional?1450    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, again, that might be something that1451comes before me as well.1452    Senator Schiff. I would imagine any number of legal issues1453could come before you. That doesn't preclude you from1454expressing your legal views on the subject, particularly1455something as broad as the constitutionality of legislation like1456the War Powers Act.1457    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, my answer's the same.1458    Senator Schiff. And let me ask you all, share with me, if1459you would, your views on nationwide injunctions, and we could1460go down the line.1461    Mr. Fowlkes. I think it's a very developing area of the law1462after Trump v. CASA, and that decision, but typically,1463injunctions and temporary restraining orders are constrained by1464Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. And the courts have, along1465with that rule, basically considered four important factors as1466to whether or not an injunction or a temporary restraining1467order should be issued, which I've already stated. But one of1468them is the likelihood of a party being successful on that1469injunction in trial eventually, the balance of equities between1470issuing the injunction and not, the possibility of irreparable1471harm, and then, of course, the public interest in issuing that1472injunction. With it being a developing area of the law, it1473would be a very cautious analysis, but it would include those1474factors and the factors enumerated by the court in Trump v.1475CASA.1476    Senator Schiff. So, you wouldn't categorically rule out the1477potential applicability of a nationwide injunction?1478    Mr. Fowlkes. I think that we have to examine closely CASA,1479and the key would be the balance of equities and whether or not1480that Supreme Court decision constrains the application of those1481four factors with a nationwide injunction, and it would appear1482on its face that it would. And I think with it being a very1483developing area of the law, it's going to be a fact-specific1484and case-specific analysis that goes into those factors.1485    Senator Schiff. Would you care to respond?1486    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I agree with much of my colleague's1487statement. I would say post-CASA, you would look to see what is1488needed to give the parties before you full and equitable1489relief, but, generally, the Supreme Court has cautioned against1490courts having the ability to bind parties not before it.1491    Mr. Peterson. And I agree with both of my colleagues,1492Senator.1493    Senator Schiff. If we could go down the line also, do you1494believe that the Congress has the power to legislate an1495enforceable code of ethics on the Supreme Court?1496    Mr. Fowlkes. I think I would probably need more facts and1497circumstances to be able to answer that question fully, but,1498certainly, if Congress were to pass a law, it would be subject1499to all the same scrutiny requirements from any other piece of1500legislation.1501    Senator Schiff. Well, can you do a little better than that?1502    Mr. Fowlkes. I think that Congress certainly has the1503authority under the law to issue, you know, laws and to vote on1504laws and to pass statutes, and certainly that would be one that1505Congress has the authority to do. Whether it would withstand1506constitutional scrutiny, I would have to have more facts and1507circumstances to be able to make a complete analysis of that1508subject.1509    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I also would like to have more facts1510before rendering an opinion on that, but, you know, I would1511obviously be very attuned to the separation of powers concerns1512that something like that would raise.1513    Mr. Peterson. Senator, again, I agree with my colleagues. I1514was only going to add the potential separation of powers1515concern, but Mr. Ganjei did that.1516    Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1517    Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Schiff, are you done?1518    Senator Schiff. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1519    Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin is on his way. [Off mic.]1520He'll be the last one. He had to go to another Committee1521meeting. That's why he wasn't here, so just hold, please.1522    [Brief pause.]1523    Chairman Grassley. Are you ready to go if I call on you1524now? We're waiting for Senator Durbin, but you can go ahead.1525    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as always,1526congratulations to you all on the nominations. We are working1527as hard as we can, and I know you've heard it from others, to1528make certain that we get through the nominations and1529confirmation process, and to fill positions with people that1530believe in the Constitution and the rule of law and will1531conduct themselves accordingly. Mr. Ganjei, am I saying that1532correct?1533    Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Senator. Thank you.1534    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Just want to be sure there. I1535noted that you had served as both an acting and an interim U.S.1536attorney in Texas, and looking at your materials, I was1537impressed by your aggressiveness and noted that you had filed1538225 cases in a single week. A lot of those were narcotics1539offenses, violent crimes, immigration matters, and your career1540has included successful prosecutions. And I noted that you had1541taken on some complex cases dealing with human trafficking,1542child abuse, crimes against children, so talk about this1543experience as a prosecutor and how you would translate that1544experience.1545    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I first speak to my experience as a1546prosecutor. You know, the one thing that I learned was how1547interconnected so many of these different offenses are. Having1548a secure border where we know where people are coming in is1549essential to preventing the trafficking of children or human1550trafficking. You know, it is something that, as the numbers1551come down, you see less and less of it, and that's a very good1552thing. As a judge, I understand how sensitive those cases are1553and how they can be approached with great caution. We're1554fortunate in the Southern District to have phenomenal1555prosecutors that handle those cases. They're very dedicated.1556They handle them with great care, with great compassion. And1557so, you know, I think that if I were selected as a judge, I1558would bring that experience with me, understanding that there's1559a tremendous human cost. There's certain crimes that maybe1560don't have an immediate apparent victim, such as, say,1561narcotics trafficking. There isn't a person you can name, but1562with sex crimes, crimes against children, there's a very1563tangible victim there, and so justice for victims is very1564important.1565    Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Mr. Fowlkes, I want to come1566to you in the same vein because here at this Committee, we've1567put a lot of work into fighting CSAM. My REPORT Act, which1568requires Big Tech platforms to report to NCMEC when they have1569actions against the safety of children, and then we are trying1570to establish a national human trafficking data base. It is1571Senator Klobuchar and I, completely bipartisan, but we think1572DOJ needs to have that, and there is a lot of work we've done1573in protecting children in the digital space. Senator Blumenthal1574and I have the Kids Online Safety Act that went through the1575Senate. We're trying to get it signed into law, and I know that1576you've prioritized the prosecution of some of the CSAM and1577child abuse cases, so talk about what you have done and how1578that would influence your work going forward.1579    Mr. Fowlkes. Under my leadership at the U.S. Attorney's1580Office in the Western District of Arkansas, we have prosecuted1581child abuse cases and exploitation cases at over 3 times the1582national average, according to the Sentencing Commission in1583their statistics that they gathered over the last 5 years.1584We're very, very proud of our work there, and the work is so1585important because these are the most vulnerable members of our1586society. And when we take an oath to uphold the law and accede1587to enforce the law, there's no greater opportunity to make our1588communities better and safer than to prosecute those who would1589knowingly take advantage of children and exploit them in the1590ways that you've described. It's such important work.1591    Going forward, obviously it would be so important for a1592judge to consider all the appropriate sentencing factors which1593are taken into account, but those would be among the most1594important cases that any judge would review because the1595victims, again, are so vulnerable and such important members of1596our society.1597    Senator Blackburn. Well, we appreciate the work that you1598all have done. I was talking with your Governor this morning--1599--1600    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes.1601    Senator Blackburn [continuing]. And we were discussing the1602work that Arkansas has done and the work she's led----1603    Mr. Fowlkes. Yes.1604    Senator Blackburn [continuing]. To make certain that we1605protect our children in that virtual space because most1606children today, if they encounter a drug dealer, a sex1607trafficker, a predator, a pedophile, a groomer, it happens1608first that connection is first made in the digital space. So,1609thank you for that work.1610    Mr. Fowlkes. Thank you, Senator.1611    Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.1612    Chairman Grassley [off mic]. Senator Durbin.1613    Senator Durbin. Thank you. I'm sorry I had to step out, but1614I'll certainly be briefed by my staff as to the issues that1615you've discussed.1616    Mr. Ganjei, as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of1617Texas, you've repeatedly criticized defendants who assaulted1618law enforcement officers. For example, you stated on multiple1619occasions that you employ a ``zero tolerance policy'' against1620these offenders, and you argued that individuals who attack law1621enforcement are ``attacking the American system of justice.''1622Do you stand by your comments criticizing individuals who1623violently assault law enforcement?1624    Mr. Ganjei. Yes, Senator, I do.1625    Senator Durbin. Do you believe that the January 6 offenders1626who were convicted of assaults on law enforcement attacked the1627American system of justice?1628    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, I think that calls for me to make a--1629--1630    Senator Durbin. Is your microphone on?1631    Mr. Ganjei. Yes, it is. I'm sorry. I'll move closer.1632Senator, I think that the question asks for me to wade into,1633like, a matter of public controversy and a political issue,1634and, therefore, I can't offer----1635    Senator Durbin. Too hot to handle, huh?1636    Mr. Ganjei. I'm sorry?1637    Senator Durbin. Too hot to handle.1638    Mr. Ganjei. No, Senator. I think just as a judicial1639nominee, it would be imprudent, and I think the canons of1640judicial conduct would prohibit me from weighing in on1641political matters such as that and matters of public1642controversy such as that.1643    Senator Durbin. Mr. Fowlkes, the most important criminal1644justice reform legislation in a generation was the First Step1645Act of 2018. I was proud to lead this and follow the real1646leader, Chairman Grassley. It was signed into law by President1647Trump during his first administration. The First Step Act1648represented a bipartisan recognition that we can and must do1649better when it comes to our criminal justice system in order to1650make our communities safer for all Americans. We've made great1651strides in bolstering public safety through the mechanisms of1652the First Step Act. What are your thoughts on the First Step1653Act as a Federal prosecutor, and what steps will you take as a1654judge, if you are confirmed, to ensure that you encourage1655rehabilitation whenever possible?1656    Mr. Fowlkes. I think it's an important piece of1657legislation, as you stated, Ranking Member Durbin, and I1658appreciate the question. I think that the First Step Act takes1659into account certain factors that are so important to the1660justice system, and some of those factors are obviously located1661already in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)--the history and characteristics1662of the defendant, their past conduct, the nature and1663circumstances of the offense--but I think it also takes into1664account the notion of rehabilitation. And in Western Arkansas,1665we have something called the Focus Court, which our office has1666worked closely with our judges in Western Arkansas to attempt1667to rehabilitate those individuals who have been convicted of1668nonviolent drug offenses and other nonviolent offenses, and to1669prepare them to reenter society and to be valuable members of1670society. And so, I think the First Step Act is an important1671part of that signaling the importance of rehabilitation of some1672of the criminals in our justice system.1673    Senator Durbin. On another related issue, the question of1674court orders, there seems to be some doubt and some questions1675have been raised as to whether or not the Trump administration1676follows the orders of the court in a prompt fashion and in a1677complete fashion. What do you consider to be the status of a1678court order you issue, a final order, from the bench?1679    Mr. Fowlkes. That any order that's issued by Federal1680district court carries with it great weight, and it carries1681with it an analysis of the statute, an analysis of the factors1682before the court, and I think that it should be given great1683weight and great deference. With regard to speaking on current1684public controversies, I'm simply constrained by the judicial1685canons, especially Canon 5, which prohibits, you know,1686political speech and political conduct, but I would say my1687answer to your question is that the rulings of the court are1688inherently important to our justice system.1689    Senator Durbin. Mr. Ganjei, a ruling by the court on the1690executive branch members, is it required to be followed?1691    Mr. Ganjei. Senator, if I'm fortunate enough to be1692confirmed as a judge, any order that I enter, I would expect1693the parties, you know, regardless of who they are, to follow1694them.1695    Senator Durbin. Mr. Peterson?1696    Mr. Peterson. Yes, Senator. If I'm fortunate enough to be1697confirmed, I would expect that any order that I enter would be1698followed by the parties.1699    Senator Durbin. Thank you all very much. Thank you, Mr.1700Chairman.1701    Chairman Grassley. Thank you. We're going to close now.1702Thanks to all the nominees for your testimony.1703    [Off mic.]1704    Chairman Grassley. Written questions for the record may be1705submitted until November 26 at 5 p.m. We'd ask you to return1706them as quickly as you can.1707    [Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]17081709    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]17101711                                 [all]