Prepared Opening Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Nominations Hearing
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
Good morning, I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing.
Our first panel features Emil Bove, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Then, on panel two, we’ll hear from four district court nominees: Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, Kyle Dudek, and Jordan Pratt – each nominated to the Middle District of Florida – and Edward Artau, nominated to the Southern District of Florida.
Before we begin, I’d like to address a few matters up front that will likely come up today.
First, Mr. Bove has been the subject of an intense opposition campaign by my Democratic colleagues and by their media allies.
While it’s fair to criticize a nominee, I think that this Committee owes him a fair shake and respect at this hearing.
This is hardly the first time this Congress that we’ve come into a nomination hearing against the backdrop of breathless claims that one of President Trump’s nominees is uniquely unqualified or unfit.
Notwithstanding the noise, this Committee gave those nominees a fair hearing, weighed their qualifications and ultimately considered them on their merits, not on media portrayals.
This Committee will do the same for Mr. Bove.
Second, as a senior attorney in the executive branch, and as a former attorney in private practice, Mr. Bove may be bound by recognized privileges – such as executive privilege, deliberative-process privilege and attorney-client privilege.
This Committee will respect those protections – not as a courtesy, but because the law demands it.
Third, I’d like to note that some of the rhetoric aimed at Mr. Bove by the media, and even by members of this Committee, has crossed the line.
One member of this Committee called Mr. Bove a “coward and a fool.”
This sort of language and personal attack is not appropriate and cheapens this process.
I’d like to admonish my colleagues to follow Senator Welch’s advice from last week’s hearing not to “turn debate into personal accusations: of motivations, of cover-up, of conspiracy, of bad character, of demeaning folks who disagree with us … We will get nowhere with that approach.”
Turning every nominee into a political punching bag isn’t advice and consent, it’s smear and obstruct – and that’s a distortion of the constitutional design.
Now, if my Democrat colleagues want to talk qualifications, let’s not forget the nominees they rubber-stamped under President Biden.
Start with Charnelle Bjelkengren, who came before this Committee with no federal court experience and couldn’t answer basic constitutional questions.
Even the press said it was a disaster, but she received the support of each of my Democratic colleagues.
Or Nancy Abudu, nominated to the Eleventh Circuit.
Her background with a group that labeled Republican senators “white supremacists” made her one of the most divisive nominees we’ve ever seen.
She received the support of every one of my Democratic colleagues.
Then there was Kato Crews, a magistrate judge who didn’t know what a Brady motion was, even though, as a sitting judge, he had a legal obligation to inform parties of their obligations under Brady v. Maryland.
He also received the support of every one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
These aren’t cherry-picked examples. They’re part of a pattern.
The Biden White House repeatedly sent us nominees who lacked the experience traditionally expected for lifetime appointments, and my colleagues voted to confirm them.
Now let’s compare those nominees to Mr. Bove.
I have the privilege of introducing him this morning, so I’d like to take a moment to highlight his background.
Mr. Bove graduated summa cum laude from Georgetown Law, earning Order of the Coif at the top of his class. He also graduated magna cum laude with a 4.0 GPA from the State University of New York at Albany.
He clerked for Judge Wesley on the Second Circuit and Judge Sullivan in the Southern District of New York – both well respected jurists.
Mr. Bove spent nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor, taking on national security and narcotics cases. This high-stakes work demands sharp legal judgment and steady resolve.
Day in and day out, he was in the trenches putting terrorists and drug traffickers behind bars.
He helped bring the Chelsea Bomber to justice – the same terrorist who planted bombs across New Jersey and New York, injured dozens of Americans and shot New Jersey police officers before he was captured.
Mr. Bove wasn’t just reading reports – he was on the ground at the FBI’s Joint Operations Center when the attacks happened, and he jumped to action and helped secure a conviction and a life sentence.
For that work, he rightly earned one of DOJ’s highest honors, the Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team.
Mr. Bove also led the prosecution of Cesar Sayoc – the domestic terrorist who mailed 16 pipe bombs intending to kill prominent Democrats – including Senator Booker, President Biden, Secretary Clinton, Vice President Harris and others.
Mr. Bove also prosecuted another pipe-bomb terrorist, a Hezbollah operative and an FBI employee accused of spying for China.
These aren’t theoretical threats – these are real national security cases, and Mr. Bove took them head-on.
Mr. Bove’s colleagues praise his tenacity, legal skill and principled commitment to the rule of law. And it’s not just words.
Thirty-six former senior Justice Department officials and 20 state attorneys general have sent letters supporting his nomination. They know firsthand what kind of lawyer and public servant he is.
But his excellent credentials do not end there.
In private practice, he represented clients at all levels of federal court, including briefing before the Supreme Court.
And now he’s in one of the most senior legal roles at the Justice Department.
Simply put, Mr. Bove checks every box. Academic distinction. Federal clerkships. Complex trial and appellate litigation. Senior Justice Department leadership.
His experience isn’t just sufficient, it’s exceptional.
He’s also served the people of the Third Circuit – both as a federal prosecutor protecting their safety and in private practice representing their interests.
He lives in the Circuit. He’s practiced in the Circuit.
I’ve heard complaints about a lack of consultation, but let’s set the record straight.
I’ve been informed that since February, the White House has consulted with my colleagues from New Jersey.
The White House interviewed or attempted to interview all of their suggested candidates, some of whom didn’t want the job.
The White House also ensured that my colleagues from New Jersey had the opportunity to meet personally with Mr. Bove.
But even when consultation happens in good faith, as it did here, opposition doesn’t automatically carry a veto.
The Committee’s recent practice makes that clear that home-state opposition doesn’t disqualify a nominee.
Just look at what happened with the Sixth Circuit last year.
Every Democrat on this Committee voted to advance Kevin Ritz, even after allegations and evidence of prosecutorial misconduct surfaced.
This happened over the objections of both home-state Senators from Tennessee.
There have been several others too.
Embry Kidd to the Eleventh Circuit, opposed by the Florida Senators; Karla Campbell to the Sixth Circuit, opposed by the Tennessee Senators; and Ryan Park to the Fourth Circuit, opposed by the North Carolina Senators.
Which brings me to another point – let’s not pretend that nominees with ties to the President are somehow suspect.
The Biden administration didn’t hesitate to nominate vocal partisans like Dale Ho, who attacked Republicans and dismissed conservative legal thought entirely.
If Democrats could look past that, they can give Mr. Bove a fair hearing.
Once again, we see a double standard: the qualifications of President Trump’s nominees are ignored by the same voices who rushed to confirm less qualified, and often overtly partisan, nominees during the last four years.
It’s time we hold everyone to the same standard.
The breadth of support Mr. Bove has earned from the legal community affirms what his record makes clear: he has a deep command of the law and a steady commitment to public service, not political agendas.
He’s ready to serve on the Third Circuit with distinction.
Our district court nominees are also highly qualified, and we look forward to hearing from each of them today.
Now, I’ll turn it over to Ranking Member Durbin for his opening statement.
-30-