Senator Dick Durbin, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned several judicial nominees during a committee hearing in Washington. The first panel included Jennifer Mascott, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Durbin focused his questions on Mascott’s opposition to implementing a code of ethics for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Durbin referenced Mascott’s previous testimony at a June 2023 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing about Supreme Court ethics reform. He noted that investigative reporting and subsequent committee investigations revealed Justice Clarence Thomas received and failed to disclose gifts worth over $4 million.
“You clerked for Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court. You also testified before this Committee against the Supreme Court ethics reform legislation at a hearing in June of 2023. That hearing followed investigative reporting that revealed Justice Clarence Thomas received and failed to disclose gifts worth millions of dollars, with some estimates placing the total value at over $4 million. This was confirmed by exhaustive Committee investigation and subpoenas that my staff and I conducted when I was Chairman of the Committee,” Durbin said.
Durbin asked Mascott if she would commit to following all judicial ethics rules if confirmed to the Third Circuit. Mascott agreed she would abide by all requirements.
“You came before this Committee to testify on an effort we’re making to try to establish a code of ethics for the highest court in the land. We know that there is a code of ethics that applies to federal judges other than the Supreme Court and how it is enforced. We are trying to write something that would apply to Supreme Court Justice Thomas or any others who have millions of dollars’ worth of undisclosed gifts. Since you came and testified against our legislation, I’ll ask you a very general question. How do you believe the Supreme Court should be governed when it comes to ethics?” Durbin asked.
Mascott stated that lower courts do not have authority over recusal decisions or ethical lapses by Supreme Court justices because it is the highest court in the country.
“When it comes to constitutional compliance, do you believe that receiving millions of dollars in gifts and not disclosing them is in the best interest of our Constitution?” Durbin followed up.
Mascott responded by noting Chief Justice Roberts’ public statements about justices’ commitment to disclosure requirements but did not directly address specific cases like those involving Justice Thomas.
“I think the reputation of the Supreme Court is important enough for us to be willing to consider new ideas of enforcement. Current rules do not work. There are too many gifts that go undisclosed to the justices serving on the highest court of the land. The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land, should not have the lowest standard of ethics. And when you testified…it left a lasting impression with me. I respect very much your education and what you have achieved in your life. It’s remarkable. But this is one question that still remains unanswered as far as I’m concerned,” Durbin concluded his questioning.
The second panel included Edmund LaCour Jr., nominated for U.S District Judge for Northern Alabama; Justice William Lewis, nominated for Middle District Alabama; and Justice James Maxwell II, nominated for Northern District Mississippi.
Durbin questioned LaCour about his role as Solicitor General during Alabama’s 2023 congressional redistricting process—a process criticized by federal courts for failing Black voters’ representation—and referenced legal challenges including Allen v Milligan decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. LaCour maintained no orders were defied due to stays issued during litigation but acknowledged involvement in drafting maps challenged under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Durbin pressed LaCour regarding arguments made before the U.S. Supreme Court suggesting discriminatory intent must be proven under Section 2—an interpretation rejected by justices in their ruling.
Justice Lewis faced questions about political activity while serving as judge despite recommendations from Alabama Judicial Canons discouraging such involvement with party organizations; Lewis argued these were recommendations rather than binding restrictions.
Finally, Durbin questioned Maxwell about upholding a 12-year sentence for cell phone possession while jailed on misdemeanor charges—a decision based on legislative sentencing guidelines rather than case circumstances according to Maxwell’s explanation.
