The Judiciary Committee voted Thursday to approve Greg Katsas, one of President Trump’s White House lawyers, for a spot on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., overcoming complaints from Democrats who said they feared putting a Trump ally on the court that decides many big federal law cases.
Mr. Katsas now moves to the Senate floor for final confirmation after the 11-9 party-line committee vote.
Mr. Katsas has served as deputy White House counsel since January, advising the president on his travel ban policy, his voter integrity commission, the challenges to Mr. Trump’s business arrangements under the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, immigration policy and the Obamacare contraception mandate.
But Mr. Katsas refused to detail his work for the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing, saying that disclosing legal advice he’s given the president would violate his duty as a lawyer.
“It’s difficult for us to know if Mr. Katsas will recuse himself appropriately when we don’t even know what all the legal issues he worked on,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking Democrat on the committee.
The progressive Alliance for Justice said Mr. Katsas would be “Trump in a robe.”
“Katsas is the ultimate Trump insider,” said Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice. “He admitted to having a hand, as deputy White House counsel, in a litany of unethical, unconstitutional actions taken by the Trump administration.”
Republicans, though, said Mr. Katsas has all the legal qualifications, including clerkships with two circuit courts and the Supreme Court. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, said working in the White House shouldn’t be disqualifying.
“He’s not responsible for the president’s policy decisions. Thus, any disagreement with this administration’s policies is no basis for voting against Mr. Katsas, who has served his country with distinction for many years,” Mr. Grassley said.
The committee also approved picks for lower district courts, including two who were rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Association.
Democrats have called the ABA’s rating the “gold standard” for evaluating judicial picks, and have suggested low ratings should be a black mark against nominees.
They applied that by opposing Brett Talley, a nominee for the Middle District of Alabama who was rated “not qualified” by the ABA because he lacked 12 years of experience as a lawyer. The committee approved him on an 11-9 party-line vote.
“When you get to the bench of a federal trial court, it would be helpful to try a case before. Instead, Mr. Talley has made a career in blogging,” Ms. Feinstein said.
Mr. Talley also blogged about the Second Amendment after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, suggesting it would come under attack by former President Obama and Democrats calling for gun control.
Mr. Talley wrote it was “an outrage that those activists have exploited the tragedy in Connecticut for their own ends.”
“He implored his blog readers to ’join the NRA,’” Ms. Feinstein said.
But Democrats backed Holly Teeter for the District of Kansas, despite also receiving a “not qualified” ABA rating because she didn’t meet the 12 years test.
Democrats said she was close to the 12 years and had a glowing recommendation by a former law professor. Only one Democrat on the committee, Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, voted against her.
So far, four out of 50 of Mr. Trump’s federal judges have received not qualified ratings from the ABA.
In addition to Mr. Talley and Ms. Teeter, Charles Goodwin for the Western District of Oklahoma and Leonard Grasz for the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have received the ABA’s lowest rating.
Two other district court judges, though, did have unanimous support from the Judiciary Committee on Thursday: Jeffrey Beaverstock for the Southern District of Alabama and Emily Marks for the Middle District of Alabama.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.