Prepared Opening Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Nominations Hearing
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
Good morning, I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing.
Our first panel features Professor Jennifer Mascott, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
On panel two, we’ll hear from five district court nominees: Judges Robert Chamberlin and James Maxwell, nominated to the Northern District of Mississippi; Edmund LaCour, nominated to the Northern District of Alabama; Justice William Lewis, nominated to the Middle District of Alabama; and Harold Mooty, nominated to the Northern District of Alabama.
Before we begin, I’d like to address a few matters up front.
First, I’m disappointed that many highly qualified nominees are being held up on the floor.
The Senate’s duty is to provide advice and consent – not manufacture gridlock.
When nominees clear this Committee, they deserve a timely vote.
Instead, we’ve seen well-qualified men and women – who have put their lives on hold and answered the call to public service, left twisting in the wind for months.
That weakens our justice system at every level. Vacant judgeships mean heavy caseloads and long delays.
Vacant U.S. Attorney’s offices leave communities without Senate-confirmed law enforcement leadership.
That should concern all of us.
There was a time when nominees who cleared this Committee were confirmed routinely, often by voice vote. Now, we see a pattern of delay and obstruct.
The losers aren’t Republicans or Democrats – they’re the American people waiting for justice. It’s time for the Senate to act.
Second, we’ve heard time and again from my Democratic colleagues that our nominees lack independence from the President.
But at the Democrats’ own partisan spotlight hearing, the Senate Minority Leader bragged that Democrats had stacked the bench with, “Progressive Judges.”
He didn’t stop there – he celebrated their rulings against President Trump and declared, “Our people are the first line of defense.”
Think about that. Our people.
That’s not the language of an independent judiciary – it’s the language of political ownership.
And yet these are the same Democrats who cry foul and accuse Republican nominees of being Trump judges. The double standard is breathtaking.
And we’re repeatedly hearing from Democrats that nominees must follow all court orders. Let me be clear: following the rule of law means obeying lawful court orders. But we now have lower court judges who aren’t following court orders.
As Justice Neil Gorsuch put it just days ago, “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.”
He warned that, “This is now the third time in a matter of weeks this court has had to intercede in a case squarely controlled by one of its precedents.”
He reminded those on the federal bench that “when this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh has made the same point: “Members of the judiciary have an important responsibility … to get it right, to do our hard work, to understand our role in the constitutional democracy. We’re not the policymakers.”
In March, Justice Alito condemned a federal court for an act of “judicial hubris and self-aggrandizement.”
When the Highest Court in the Land uses phrases like defy, hubris and self-aggrandizement to describe what is happening in our judiciary, it tells you something has gone terribly wrong.
All of us should agree – lawful federal court orders must be respected.
That’s not a Republican point or a Democrat point. That’s the bedrock of the rule of law.
It’s stunning to hear Democrats accuse Republican nominees of being Trump judges, when their own leader boasts that their nominees are his people.
Judges aren’t supposed to be anybody’s people.
They belong to a separate branch of government, insulated from partisanship, with one duty – to follow the law, whether they like the outcome or not.
That brings us to today’s nominees – highly qualified men and women who understand the importance of judicial independence in our constitutional design.
We’ll hear more about Professor Mascott’s tremendous resume in just a moment but let me start by acknowledging that she’s well known, and well respected, by this Committee.
This Committee has called on Professor Mascott repeatedly to testify about some of the toughest constitutional and statutory questions.
She’s also filed amicus briefs on behalf of members of this Committee in important cases.
We trusted her judgment then, and we can trust it now.
Professor Mascott’s qualifications speak for themselves.
She clerked for two sitting Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court has cited her scholarship eight times and even mentioned her by name at oral argument.
At George Washington University Law School, she earned a record-breaking 4.22 GPA.
Her professors even wrote to this Committee to explain they often thought her exam answers were better than their own answer keys.
That kind of intellect, paired with her steady judgment, makes Professor Mascott an outstanding nominee for the Third Circuit.
Our district court nominees are also highly qualified, and we look forward to hearing from each of them today.
As a final point, I’ll mention that we’ll have a long hearing today. We have six nominees, two panels and multiple introducers.
I’ll ask everyone to keep their questions limited to the five minutes allotted to keep the hearing on schedule.
-30-