Hearings to examine the nominations of Joshua D. Dunlap, of Maine, to be United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit, Eric Chunyee Tung, of California, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, William W. Mercer, to be United States District Judge for the District of Montana, and Stephen Chad Meredith, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

2025-07-30

Summary

This meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee convened to consider the nominations of Eric Tung to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Joshua Dunlap to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Stephen Chad Meredith to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and William Mercer to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana[ 00:39:57 ]

. Senators introduced the nominees, highlighting their qualifications and experience, but also raised significant concerns regarding some nominees' past statements, judicial philosophies, and involvement in controversial executive actions. The hearing featured extensive questioning on issues of judicial impartiality, adherence to precedent, and policy positions.

Themes

Judicial Nominations and Qualifications

The hearing focused on four judicial nominees, with particular attention to Eric Tung for the Ninth Circuit and Joshua Dunlap for the First Circuit, as well as District Court nominees Stephen Chad Meredith and William Mercer[ 00:39:57 ]

. Senators praised the nominees' extensive legal backgrounds, educational achievements, and prior public service, including clerkships with distinguished judges and roles in various legal capacities. Many speakers emphasized the constitutional responsibility of advising and consenting on judicial appointments and the importance of selecting highly qualified individuals for lifetime positions.

Judicial Philosophy (Originalism/Textualism)

A significant portion of the questioning revolved around the nominees' judicial philosophies, particularly originalism and textualism. Mr. Tung and Mr. Dunlap both articulated their adherence to these interpretive methods, defining them as seeking the original public meaning of a text—whether the Constitution or a statute—at the time of its enactment or ratification. They argued that this approach anchors judges to the law, prevents them from becoming policymakers, and ensures judicial restraint[ 01:39:45 ]

. Critics, however, questioned whether these philosophies were selectively applied or used to avoid answering questions about controversial precedents.

Controversies and Past Statements

Several nominees faced intense scrutiny over past comments and actions. Mr. Tung was questioned about undergraduate statements from 2004 suggesting "gender roles," that "women are simply better than men at some things," and that "radical feminists... undermine institutions like marriage". He was also pressed on more recent remarks from a Federalist Society event where he stated that for an originalist, there is "no" constitutional right to same-sex marriage or sodomy. Mr. Tung defended his earlier statements as reflecting a belief in complementary gender roles and declined to update his views on "live issues" or "matters of policy and sociology". Additionally, Mr. Tung was challenged on his past participation in a Labor Day protest and his association with Mike Davis, whose "overtly racist remarks" were brought up. Mr. Dunlap was questioned about an op-ed and his internship with an organization that opposes women's reproductive rights and marriage equality.

Executive Pardons

Mr. Meredith was extensively questioned about his role, or lack thereof, in controversial pardons issued by Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin during his final days in office. Specifically, senators pressed him on the pardons of Patrick Baker and Dayton Jones, convicted of serious crimes. Mr. Meredith stated he learned about these pardons from the media after leaving office and denied advising the governor on them. Similarly, Mr. Mercer declined to comment on President Trump's pardon of January 6th defendants, citing the pardon power as outside judicial involvement[ 02:46:01 ]

Role of Judges and Judicial Impartiality

A core theme was the nominees' commitment to impartiality and adhering to binding precedent[ 01:14:26 ]

. Both Mr. Tung and Mr. Dunlap affirmed their commitment to setting aside personal preferences and applying the law fairly[ 01:14:26 ] . However, senators expressed skepticism when nominees declined to offer opinions on whether certain Supreme Court decisions, like Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage) or Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy), were "rightly decided," claiming judicial ethics prevented comment on "live issues"[ 01:19:54 ] . This stance was contrasted with their willingness to affirm that Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) was correctly decided[ 01:44:32 ] .

Consultation Process for Nominees

Senator Durbin raised concerns about the White House's "lack of meaningful consultation with Democratic home state senators" for the First and Ninth Circuit nominees. He contrasted this with the Biden administration's longer consultation periods for similar vacancies. Senator Coons, however, stated that the process for Mr. Dunlap's nomination in Maine followed the established procedure, which involves an advisory committee and interviews by both senators after White House consideration.

Freedom of Speech and Government Speech

Senator Kennedy posed a series of hypothetical questions to Mr. Meredith regarding the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and "government speech" doctrine. The discussion explored the ability of a private newspaper to refuse an ad versus a television station's obligations, and the role of the federal government in regulating "public resources" like airwaves versus editorial discretion. Mr. Meredith acknowledged the complexity of the legal area and distinguished between federal property regulation and private entities' speech rights[ 01:51:53-01:51:59 ]

[ 03:13:15 ] .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting fluctuated between formal and highly contentious. Initial introductions were often congratulatory and highlighted the nominees' impressive qualifications and family support[ 00:39:45-00:40:20 ]

. However, the atmosphere became more confrontational during the questioning periods, particularly for Mr. Tung and Mr. Meredith, as senators pressed them on controversial past statements and actions. There was palpable frustration from some senators regarding nominees' reluctance to directly answer questions about policy positions or whether past Supreme Court cases were correctly decided, often citing canons of judicial ethics[ 01:20:55 ] . There was also a strong partisan divide in the nature of the questions and comments, with Republican senators often defending the nominees and criticizing the process or perceived "activism" of certain courts[ 01:24:49-01:25:14 ] .