Confirmation Hearings
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held hearings on Trump’s first slate of judicial nominees — a group of right-wing ideologues with brief legal careers largely defined by pushing extreme shifts in the law. Despite the stakes of granting lifetime appointments under an executive openly hostile to the judiciary, Senate Democrats failed to either show up for the full hearing or to meaningfully challenge the nominees and their anti-civil rights records. They should remember how eagerly Republicans attacked Biden’s nominees, often relying on misinformation to do so.
During their confirmation hearings, Trump’s nominees offered no meaningful explanations for some of their most extreme views and repeatedly declined to answer even the most basic questions about their legal philosophy and experience. Hermandorfer (6th Circuit), closely tied to the secretive, Leonard Leo–backed Teneo Network, could not clearly explain what the group does — raising serious concerns about her role in the broader effort to capture the judiciary for the ultra-wealthy and far-right.
Divine evaded questions on marriage equality and downplayed his past claim that he was a “religious zealot” for anti-abortion causes. He, along with Bluestone and Lanahan, also refused to clearly affirm that the executive branch must comply with lower court orders.
Despite serious concerns raised by public and civil rights organizations, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee failed to demand answers — many didn’t even stay for the full hearings. It is the Senate’s duty to thoroughly vet lifetime judicial nominees, and that responsibility must be taken seriously moving forward.
Trump’s Second Slate of Judicial Nominees
With nominees as extreme and ideological as the first slate, Trump continues his efforts to push his loyalist into lifetime judgeships.
Emil Bove’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit makes clear that corruption and blind loyalty aren’t flaws in Trump’s judicial strategy — they’re the point. In addition to serving as Trump’s personal attorney, Bove has used his senior position at the Department of Justice to weaponize the rule of law. He directed the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York to drop charges against Mayor Eric Adams, who was accused of using his office to solicit bribes and illegal campaign contributions. Bove has also targeted FBI officials and experienced prosecutors for their efforts to hold January 6th rioters accountable. It is deeply alarming to consider the damage Bove could do as a lifetime federal appellate judge, with the power to shape the law and impact countless lives for generations to come.
Trump’s other nominees include Kyle Dudek, Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, John Guard, and Jordan Pratt for the Middle District of Florida, as well as Ed Artau for the Southern District of Florida. These nominees all have deeply troubling records:
Kyle Dudek (M.D. FL): The majority of Dudek’s litigation experience has been dedicated to defending police officers, public officials, and prison guards against civil rights violations. The rest of Dudek’s litigation experience was in representing corporations in employment-related disputes.
Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe (M.D. FL): Moe has demonstrated a clear willingness to disregard precedent and legal norms to advance a partisan agenda. In one case, she ruled — despite overwhelming precedent — that a city lacked authority over its own zoning decisions. In another, she applied a Florida tort reform law retroactively, even though the law explicitly stated it would not apply to past cases. The law severely limited plaintiffs' ability to pursue negligence and bad-faith insurance claims, and Moe’s decision effectively amplified its harm.
John Guard (M.D. FL): A member of both the Federalist Society and the National Rifle Association, John Guard has embraced far-right legal positions. He called for an investigation into Dr. Fauci over the federal COVID-19 response, sued the Biden administration over what he claimed was an “unlawful immigration policy of releasing aliens,” and defended Florida’s abortion ban following the fall of Roe v. Wade.
Jordan Pratt (M.D. FL): Before his appointment to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, Pratt served as counsel for First Liberty Institute — the same far-right legal group behind Trump-era judicial nominees like Matthew Kacsmaryk and Andrew Oldham. Throughout his career, Pratt has consistently prioritized a conservative ideological agenda over well-established constitutional protections, especially when it comes to bodily autonomy, LGBTQ+ rights, public health, and gun safety.
Ed Artau (S.D. FL): Artau, a judge on Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal, has demonstrated a judicial philosophy hostile to LGBTQ+ rights, gun safety laws, environmental protections, and free speech. His record also raises serious ethical concerns. In 1995, a gubernatorial investigation found he acted improperly and more recently, after entering talks with Senator Rick Scott about a potential federal judgeship, Artau refused to recuse himself from a defamation case brought by Trump against members of the Pulitzer Prize Board. In his ruling favoring Trump, he echoed the former president’s rhetoric about “fake news” and a “hoax.” He was interviewed by the White House Counsel shortly afterward for a judicial nomination.
On Wednesday, Trump announced his intent to nominate Chad Meredith to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. A stanch supporter of abortion restrictions and former Kentucky solicitor general, Meredith marks the beginning of Trump’s third slate of judicial nominees this term — continuing a pattern of selecting candidates with strong anti-civil rights records. AFJ strongly opposes each of these nominees. We will provide detailed research on their extremist records ahead of their Senate hearings, and we urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold them accountable for their anti-civil rights actions.
