Prepared Opening Statement by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee
Nominations
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
Good morning. I’d like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing.
Our first panel features Justin Smith, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
On panel two, we’ll hear from three nominees to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas: Jeffrey Kuhlman, Anthony Mattivi and Anthony Powell.
In a moment, I’ll turn to our visitors to introduce these nominees, but first I’d like to say a few words.
This past year, the now-Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, launched the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative.
The effort uses the False Claims Act to recover federal funds from recipients that knowingly violate federal law by engaging in practices that racially discriminate.
Thanks to the Justice Department’s initiative, a federal contractor recently agreed to pay $17 million to settle claims brought under the False Claims Act related to its so-called DEI practices.
As Attorney General Blanche rightly stated, “Racial discrimination is illegal, and government contractors cannot evade the law by repackaging it as DEI.”
Make no mistake: recipients of federal funding have a basic obligation to adhere to our federal civil rights laws.
And I’m pleased that the False Claims Act, which I have long championed, is recovering taxpayer funds and combating illegal discrimination.
Relevant to today, I’d also like to address an issue that has been repeatedly featured at our nomination hearings.
Some of my Democratic colleagues have relentlessly attacked nominees for their responses about election results.
I think a civics lesson is in order.
Under Article II and the 12th Amendment of our Constitution, the electoral college dictates who wins presidential elections.
Those electors cast ballots, and the Vice President certifies their vote count at a joint session of Congress.
Don’t take my word for it.
Let me read to you what the 12th Amendment states: “The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors.”
When recent judicial nominees have been asked who won the 2020 election, they’ve correctly stated that President Biden was certified as the winner and served for four years.
When asked about the 2024 election, they’ve correctly acknowledged that President Trump was certified as the winner and is currently in office.
These answers are correct – both factually and legally.
For some reason, my Democratic colleagues consider these correct legal answers to be evasive. One of them called it a “loyalty test.” But these attacks are misguided.
Under our Constitutional system, whoever is certified as receiving the majority vote from the electoral college is the winner of the election.
There’s no other way to “win the election.”
Not accepting this basic principle of our Constitution, some of my Democratic colleagues have followed up with political theater, asking who won the popular vote in these elections.
Of course, none of the nominees counted ballots.
They lack any first-hand knowledge of the vote counts. And why should they? The popular vote doesn’t determine the president under our Constitution.
Still, some of my Democratic colleagues have insulted the nominees for giving legally accurate answers by describing them as “monkeys or puppets.”
This is unfair and beneath our office.
The nominees’ answers demonstrate they are constitutionalists. And that’s exactly what we should want – judges who uphold the Constitution and do not bend to political attack or insult.
Today, we have four more judicial nominees who are cut from that same cloth.
They’ve defended the Constitution throughout their careers, and I look forward to hearing from them today.
-30-