Hearings to examine fighting fraud in Minnesota and beyond.

Morning everybody. I'd like to welcome everybody at this hearing. Our panel features Robert Cicada for Director of ATF and four district court nominees: Andrew Davis, West District Texas; Judge John Shepard, Western District Arkansas; Anna St. John, Eastern District Louisiana; Judge Christopher Wolff, Western District Texas. We'll have several introducers in just a minute. Before I turn to them, we've seen a lot of judicial activism around the country in recent months. I've repeatedly spoken about the need for judges to remain in their constitutional lane. They must interpret and uphold the law in a neutral and impartial manner. They serve the rule of law, not political ideology or personal position. And that's why I'm so pleased with today's four judicial nominees. Their diverse careers demonstrate a commitment to our Constitution and the rule of law. Mr. Davis has had an impressive career across all branches of government, serving at having clerked for judges of the Northern District Texas and the Second Circuit. He served as an assistant solicitor general in the Texas Attorney General's office, and he's even worked in the legislature supporting this committee as Senator Cruz's chief counsel. This range of experiences will benefit him on the bench. Judge Shepard has a unique career which also prepares him well to serve as a federal judge. He's litigated both civil and criminal matters. He's seen all sides of criminal disputes. Judge Shepard did criminal defense work as a court-appointed advocate but also served as a prosecutor handling violent felonies and drug crimes. For the past year, he's served as a state judge in Arkansas, continuing his career of service with distinction. Ms. St. John has impeccable credentials, a graduate of Columbia Law School, clerking for Judge Barksdale on the Fifth Circuit. Her litigation practice has covered some of the most difficult areas of the law. She's litigated class actions, administrative claims, and constitutional questions. Ms. St. John also fought to protect First Amendment rights of free speech and religious liberties, and she's done great work advocating to protect women's sports. Judge Wolff spent nearly two decades in public service as a local and federal prosecutor. He handled the most important work facing the U.S. Attorney's office in the Northern District of Texas and even in the District of Minnesota. Judge Wolff tirelessly worked to protect Americans against the scourge of drug trafficking and white-collar fraud. He's also served as a state judge for the better part of a decade, gaining experience that will serve him well on the federal bench. Our panel also features a well-qualified nominee serving as Director of ATF. Mr. Cicada has had an extensive career protecting Americans at state and federal level. He served more than a decade as a police officer, receiving numerous awards and commendations for his service. He has also spent two decades at the ATF. He knows how to lead the bureau because he's tirelessly worked throughout the chain of command. Mr. Cicada has worked as a special agent, he's managed ATF regional divisions, and he's spent the past several years in the ATF's leadership. Mr. Cicada has a track record of collaborating with federal state law enforcement to investigate drug trafficking, firearms, and trafficking firearms trafficking, arson, and violent crimes. He's led investigative efforts into the host of violent gangs and domestic terrorist groups, including MS-13 and Tren de Aragua. The committee has received nearly a dozen letters from law enforcement organizations commending Mr. Cicada and endorsing his nomination, and I have also seen Mr. Cicada's work firsthand. So now I want to compliment him on this. Last month, I successfully worked to secure a resolution for my ATF whistleblower who experienced severe retaliation at the hands of the previous administration. He had blown the whistle on ATF's misclassification scheme and improper hiring practices. Mr. Cicada worked closely with my staff to bring this resolution forward, saving the taxpayers well a lot of taxpayers' money were wasted, but make sure that no more were wasted. I commend his strong leadership and aggressive efforts to find a solution for this brave whistleblower, and if confirmed, I encourage him to enable more whistleblowers to come forward to help him understand what's going on in the bureau. Now Senator Durbin's going to speak. I want everyone to keep their questions limited to the five minutes allotted to keep the hearing on schedule. Senator Durbin.

Thanks Chairman Grassley, and congratulations to the nominees and their families. I've been on this committee for a number of years, and I've attended more nomination hearings than I can count. Administrations have changed and the control of Senate has gone back and forth. But one thing hasn't changed, and that's the purpose of the hearing. We're here to determine whether each of the nominees is qualified on the judicial side for a lifetime appointment to the bench. One key question is whether you will have independent the independence as a judge, an Article III judge, to rule against the government without fear or favor if it does something illegal or unconstitutional. The stakes have never been higher in modern times. In its second iteration, the Trump administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to upend the rule of law, violate the constitutional rights of Americans, and blatantly ignore court orders. Look no further than Minnesota. Peaceful protesters are being pepper-sprayed in the face when they are already restrained face down on the ground. U.S. citizens are being detained for hours and sometimes days, all because of the color of their skin or because they have an accent. In the span of two and a half weeks, federal immigration agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota who were exercising their First Amendment right to document and peacefully protest this administration's policies. In response, administration officials falsely claimed that Renee Good, one of the first victims, and Alex Pretri were domestic terrorists. That's not the only time that term has come up. Yesterday we had a gathering to have testimony from other victims of ICE and Border Patrol. One of the most noteworthy was from the city of Chicago. Her name is Mary Mar Martinez. She's 30 years old. She's a teacher at a Montessori school. One Saturday morning in October, she decided to take some clothing that she'd gathered and take it to her local church so it could be given to others. On the way to that, she encountered individuals who were with the federal agencies, ICE and Border Patrol. What happened next is incredible. She was accused of ramming their car when there was no evidence of that, and they ended up firing at her. They they struck her with five bullets, left her with seven holes in her body. The man who did it was a 23-year-old 23-year veteran of the Border Patrol. Somehow or another she managed to drive about a mile and they called an ambulance and took her to the hospital. The FBI agents and others met her at the hospital and started restricting her movement, saying she couldn't seek further medical advice because she was under arrest. This situation went from bad to worse. She was accused of being a domestic terrorist. Let me tell you how the story ended. Thankfully she survived five shots. The man who shot her, Mr. Exum of the CPB official from the state of Maine, ended up bragging on the internet in a text that he was a pretty good shot to get seven holes in her body with only five bullets involved. That's the sort of thing you can't believe happens in America, that that man would do that. It was a matter of court record that he did say that. And what happened to the vehicle that was rammed? Interesting part of the story. They ended up taking it a thousand miles to the state of Maine from Chicago where there was an effort made to conceal the actual contact point between the two vehicles. That's the reality of the situation. This poor young woman is going to have her life changed forever because of this experience. And what happened to the charges against her? All of them were dropped. All of the charges against her were dropped. This sort of thing is happening in Chicago, it's happening everywhere. Why are we letting this go forward? It's just hard to understand how we've reached this point in this nation. Now a whistleblower has disclosed an ICE memo telling immigration agents that they are allowed to enter private homes to arrest people without a judicial warrant. Private homes. I remember a time when Republicans and Democrats would have been outraged by the notion that federal agents could enter a private home without a judicial warrant in disregard of the Fourth Amendment. The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia famously wrote in 2013, quote, 'When it comes to the Fourth Amendment, the home is the first among equals.' If this ICE memo isn't evidence of a lawless administration, I don't know what is. Don't take my word for it. In an order issued last Wednesday, Chief Judge for the District of Minnesota Patrick Schiltz highlighted 96 court orders that he said ICE had violated in Minnesota alone. Listen to what Judge Schiltz wrote: 'This list should give pause to anyone, no matter his or her political beliefs. Who cares about the rule of law? ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.' Not surprisingly, the Trump administration responded by attacking Judge Schiltz as an activist. In fact, Judge Schiltz is a prominent conservative who clerked for Justice Scalia and was appointed by President George W. Bush. Judges face ever-growing dockets and thorny legal questions, and many now have to grapple with personal attacks and threats of violence as a direct result of repeated attacks by President Trump and his followers. This administration went as far as filing a misconduct complaint against Judge James Boasberg for private comments he made to other federal judges, notably Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, another George W. Bush appointee, dismissed the complaint. President Trump and many Republican members of Congress have called for judges to be impeached for now ruling in his administration's favor. As Chief Justice Roberts said and I quote, 'Impeachment is not an appropriate response to a disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' It's not an easy time to be a judge, but it's more important than ever in our history. So I hope today's nominees can persuade you that if confirmed, you'll be loyal to the law and not to the president.

Thank you Senator Durbin. Now we'll go to the introductions, but before we call on Senator Moran to start, Senator Cassidy could not be here, but he asked me to enter into the record his statement in support of Anna St. John, so without objection that will be done. Now we'll have Senator Moran, Boozman, and Cotton speak, start Senator Moran.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here to introduce Robert Cicada. I thank you for that opportunity and I thank him for asking me to serve in this capacity. I'm pleased to appear before you today to introduce Robert Cicada as the next Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF. In my capacity as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds ATF, that funds the Department of Justice, I have the opportunity I've had the opportunity on numerous occasions to get to know Rob. He currently serves as the Deputy Director of ATF and is in my view the consummate lawman. He worked the beats, the beat of the streets of New York City, rose through the ranks, he rose through the ranks due to his talent, his skill, his gumption, his dedication to his job, his dedication to our country. He's an honorable man who believes in both the enforcement of law and in public safety. The members of this committee know that ATF is a multi-faceted agency. It in particular its regulation of firearms, a constitutionally protected right, has made it at times exceptionally politically challenging. I've had the opportunity to work in the capacity of of my role on the Appropriations Subcommittee to try to deal with both the side of regulation of firearms as well as the right of enforcing our laws and protecting citizens that the ATF does well. I've heard from many sheriffs and police chiefs in Kansas and across the country how ATF's partnerships have helped reduce gun violence in their areas. I've been in numerous meetings with Mr. Cicada and have seen his commitment toward cooperation between state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies. Beginning in the July of in July of 24, over the course of several months, an ATF undercover officer conducted multiple controlled purchases from targets in the Kansas City area, leading to the seizure of 20 firearms, including six that appeared to have been modified to be fully automatic. This is the contribution we need to our public safety from the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agency, working with local law enforcement to get guns off the street from non-law-abiding citizens. ATF's contribution to crime gun intelligence, particularly through something called the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, what we call NIBIN, is a game changer in public policy. And this nominee has been fully engaged in bringing technology to the efforts of protecting the public. Simply put, ATF is an agency that ensures violent criminals are put behind bars. Several years ago in my capacity in Appropriations, I was visiting with Attorney General William Barr where I asked him, what do I need to know about the Department of Justice? And he told me something that I've remembered, and we have responsibility for appropriating for the FBI, the DEA, and the U.S. Marshals as well. But Attorney General Barr told me that ATF is the can-do agency and that they deserve our support. I think we have found the administration has found a person of great capabilities, character, and dedication. Robert Cicada is a a great nominee to be the next Director of ATF, and I ask your consideration of that process in this process, and I hope you find him favorable to serve in this capacity. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Senator Moran. Now Senator Boozman.

Thank you Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Durbin and my distinguished colleagues. It's an honor to be here with my friend and fellow senator to introduce a distinguished Arkansan, John Thomas Shepard, President Trump's nominee to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. I would also like to say hi to his family and friends who are here in attendance to support him, and we are more than happy to have you. A native of El Dorado, Arkansas, John Thomas is a graduate of Rice University and the University of Arkansas School of Law. After graduating, John Thomas served as an attorney and later partner at Shepard and Shepard with his brother Matthew, who is also a very respected lawyer in South Arkansas. And they both take after their father Bobby, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals in the for the Eighth Circuit since 2006. John Thomas went on to become the prosecuting attorney and then judge for Arkansas's 13th Judicial Circuit. Throughout his career, he has earned the trust and respect of his fellow attorneys, law enforcement officials, and Arkansans through his integrity, professionalism, and thoughtful leadership. He is widely regarded as a fair and even-handed jurist. His careful analysis and sound judgment reflect a deep respect for the rule of law. John Thomas has consistently demonstrated a strong work ethic and an intellectual rigor. And I'm confident he will bring the same level of care and diligence to every matter that comes before him. His breadth of experience as a prosecutor and a judge has prepared him well for the federal bench. And it's for this reason, for these reasons, that I commend President Trump's decision to nominate him. There's no question that John Thomas Shepard is exceptionally qualified and well-suited to serve with distinction on the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. I strongly support his nomination and urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you Senator Boozman. Now Senator Cotton.

Chairman Grassley, Senator Durbin, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, good morning. I'm pleased to join Senator Boozman and to be with you today to introduce my fellow Arkansan and the nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, the Honorable John Thomas Shepard. I want to first thank Judge Shepard for answering the call to public service in this new role. I'd also like to recognize the Shepard family, a pillar of the El Dorado Union County and South Arkansas communities. Joining us today are his wife Molly, his sons Tommy and Roe, his father Eighth Circuit Judge Bobby Shepard, his mother Bobby, his brother Matthew Shepard, a state representative and former speaker of the Arkansas State House, his sister Sarah, her children, and his father-in-law Dr. James McGee. Last but certainly not least, I'd also like to mention his youngest son Will Henry, a busy two-year-old who I imagine is at home with a more enjoyable source of entertainment. Thank you all for your support for Judge Shepard, especially through this nomination process. Judge Shepard has dedicated his career to upholding the rule of law in Arkansas. As an accomplished prosecutor and now a judge, he has worked tirelessly to keep Arkansans in our community safe from violent criminals and drugs. A native of El Dorado, Judge Shepard graduated with honors from the University of Arkansas School of Law. After private practice focusing on areas such as federal and state civil litigation, commercial transactions, and business formation, Governor Asa Hutchinson appointed Judge Shepard as the prosecuting attorney for the 13th Judicial District in El Dorado. As prosecuting attorney, Judge Shepard handled a wide range of felony cases including homicides, major drug cases, and white-collar criminal offenses. With years of legal experience under his belt, Judge Shepard won election to be the circuit judge for the 13th Judicial District. In this new role, Judge Shepard continues to handle a wide range of felony cases, but this time while presiding from the bench. In addition to his professional accolades, Judge Shepard is active in his community. Among his many venues of service, Judge Shepard is a volunteer youth coach for the Boys and Girls Club of El Dorado, a radio color analyst for the El Dorado High School football team, and an active member of his church. Judge Shepard has done an exceptional job serving the state of Arkansas as a legal professional, judge, and community leader. I'm honored to join Senator Boozman in supporting his nomination. I encourage my colleagues on the committee and in the Senate to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you Senator Cotton. Now Senator Cornyn.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing today. I'm honored to introduce the Honorable Christopher Robert Wolff, President Trump's nominee to serve as a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas, as well as Andrew Bray Davis, President Trump's nominee to serve as U.S. District Judge also in the Western District. Texas is proud of our federal judiciary, and I'm always happy to see those who've already dedicated so much of their careers to public service receive these well-deserved promotions. Judge Wolff is no exception. After earning both his B.A. and J.D. from Baylor University and a brief stint in private practice, he began his journey in public service as a local and then federal prosecutor. Judge Wolff also spent time working in the U.S. Attorney's office in the District of Minnesota, but in 2010 he returned to the Northern District of Texas where he became deputy branch chief in 2017. In 2018, Governor Abbott appointed Judge Wolff to serve as a state district court judge for the 213th Judicial District in Tarrant County, where he was re-elected in 2020 and 2024. With so many years of dedicated public service to the state of Texas, I have no doubt that Judge Wolff will continue his excellent work now as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District. Mr. Davis hails from from Lubbock, Texas, known as the Hub City, the home of Buddy Holly. Many of you are too too young to know who Buddy Holly was, but he made Lubbock famous. He completed his undergraduate education at Rice University in Houston and then went to the Big Apple to attend law school at Columbia, where he earned his J.D. Afterward he served for one of our most distinguished district court judges, Sidney Fitzwater, in the Northern District of Texas, and then headed to the Second Circuit to clerk for a Judge Rena Raggi on the U.S. Court of Appeals. He spent three years working in civil litigation and regulatory law before becoming an assistant solicitor general in the Texas Attorney General's office. Mr. Davis was hired by a former Texas solicitor general who we are all familiar with, Ted Cruz. Mr. Davis worked for him in the Senate Judiciary Committee, eventually rising to serve as Senator Cruz's chief counsel. After his time on the Hill, he joined Lhotse, Keller and Cohn as a partner. Once he's confirmed, I'm sure Mr. Davis's experience, his stellar education, and his West Texas roots will serve him well in this position. I just want to close by saying congratulations Andrew and Chris on your nominations, and I look forward to supporting both of your confirmations here in the committee and on the Senate floor soon.

Thank you Senator Cornyn. Now Senator Cruz.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate my colleague the senior senator from Texas' invocation of Buddy Holly. I think all of us remember where we were the day the music died. Today the committee has the privilege of considering two exceptional nominees, both sons of Lubbock, Texas, who embody the very best of public service, professional excellence, and devotion to the rule of law. It is not every day that we introduce two nominees from the same hometown, much less two graduates of Lubbock High School. But it is a fitting reminder that extraordinary public servants often come from ordinary places, shaped by strong communities, faith, family, and a deep sense of responsibility. A federal judgeship is a calling of public service, one that requires patience, restraint, and an enduring commitment to the rule of law. Both of our nominees have answered that call time and again, choosing service to the public and to this institution over easier paths in public life. Let me begin with Andrew Davis. After graduating Lubbock High School, Andrew attended Rice University and later went to Columbia Law School, where he was a James Kent scholar. Andrew went on to clerk for two federal judges, Judge Sidney Fitzwater, former chief judge of the Northern District of Texas, and Judge Rena Raggi of the Second Circuit. As an assistant solicitor general, Andrew represented the state of Texas before the Texas Supreme Court, the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court, handling some of the most consequential legal questions facing the Lone Star State. Andrew then came to Washington to serve on this committee as my chief counsel. I will give him a word of warning. My last chief counsel who was nominated to be a judge and who actually the Senate confirmed yesterday, during his hearing, my friend and colleague Senator Kennedy asked him if it was true or false that I could burp the alphabet. And so I would advise backwards, backwards. I so I would advise Mr. Davis, I hope you have prepared diligently for what I assume will be Senator Kennedy's withering line of questions, and I'm telling you right now you will have no help and assistance from this front as you endure that gauntlet. Andrew is going to serve as a terrific judge on the Western District of Texas, and he is going to bring integrity and principle and fidelity to the rule of law. But I secondly want to introduce Chris Wolff. Chris Wolff was also born and raised in Lubbock and is a graduate of Baylor Law School. He spent 15 years as a prosecutor in the Northern District of Texas, trying serious drug trafficking and white-collar cases before being appointed by Governor Abbott to the state district bench. For nearly eight years, Judge Wolff has presided over serious felony cases including sexual assault, child abuse, financial fraud, and capital murder. Over the course of his career, he has tried or presided over more than 100 trials. He is widely respected as a fair, efficient judge who follows the law and treats every person before him with dignity. Judge Wolff is here today with his family, including his wife Sarah and five of their six children. Their son, who is not currently present for today's hearing, is currently deployed as a Navy surface warfare officer aboard the USS Pinckney. Judge Wolff will serve the country with honor, and I'm glad to support his nomination. And now I am done.

Thank you Senator Cruz. Now Senator Kennedy.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Anna St. John is she's from a small town. She went off to LSU, knocked the top out of it, graduated magna cum laude. Then she went to Columbia University, got a master's degree. Then she went to Columbia Law School, she knocked the top out of it too. She also was a ju- ...James Kent scholar. Then she clerked for a very prestigious judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. After that, Covington and Burling, a firm headquartered in Washington, D.C. but with offices everywhere, recruited her. Now let me just say a word about Covington. It's one of the premier law firms in the world. Has been for as long as I can remember, 75 years. You may or may not like their politics, but they don't hire dummies. And what they do is they hire a bunch of bright students right out of law school, work them to death and let them compete, and of course the partners make money off of them. But they let them compete. And for many of the young lawyers there, for the first time in their lives, they're around people that are smarter and have a greater work ethic than them. And a lot of young lawyers leave. I'm not picking on Covington, that's the model for a lot of the great law firms. So it's rare to stay at Covington for a long period of time unless you're going to be made partner. Ms. St. John did. She stayed seven years. And I have it on good authority, and I knew it anyway, that had she stayed, she would have been a partner. The good news is that would have meant mega bucks. The bad news is that being a partner at a major law firm like Covington, it's not a job, it's a lifestyle. And that's okay. I mean, all the big firms talk about life balance and all that, but it's all rhetoric. It's a lifestyle, it's not a job. Before she was made partner, even though she would have been had she stayed, Ms. St. John said, you know, this isn't for me. I want to get married, I want to have children, I want to have a little more balance in my life. So she left. She came back to Louisiana. Any firm in Louisiana would have hired her. But she chose to go with a boutique national law firm involved in... they don't hire dummies either... involved in class actions throughout the country. I'm telling you this to give you an indication of what her background is like. You'll see in a second. I have never talked politics with Ms. St. John. I don't have the slightest idea what her politics are. But I have talked about the law with her. And that's why I think Bill and I nominated her to the President. She is a real student of the law, not all lawyers are. She understands the beauty of the law. She understands the majesty of the law. She understands the nuances in the law. And that's the kind of person we want on the federal bench. And that's really why I recommended her to the President. And I've talked too long, Mr. Chairman, but I think you'll see what I mean in a second when the committee gets to ask her questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Will the five people being nominated and questioned today come forward? And before you sit down, I would like to swear you. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

I do.

I do.

I do.

I do.

I do.

All have answered affirmatively. Each of you can please sit down. Each of you can, before you give your statement, introduce your family and friends, whatever you want to say you can say. And we'll start with you, Mr. Cekada.

Good morning, thank you. Really briefly before I give my statement, I would like to just thank my son Robbie, who traveled up here from Florida late last night to be with me today and support me. My wife and daughter are both in school today and couldn't be here today to join me. I have many of my friends and coworkers from ATF here, in addition to many state and local law enforcement officers that I've had the honor of working with over the many years that I've been involved with ATF, NYPD, and the Plantation Police Department. Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and the distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be before you today. I am deeply honored and humbled by President Trump's nomination to serve as the Director of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. I am grateful to the President for his confidence and his unwavering commitment to backing the men and women of law enforcement who put themselves in harm's way every day to protect the American people. I am also thankful to this committee for its consideration of my nomination. I would like to begin by thanking my family. My wife, Leah, and my children, Robbie and Gianna, have been my constant source of strength and purpose throughout my career. Over the past several years, my wife has courageously battled stage 3 breast cancer while holding our family together as a commute between Florida and Washington and continued service to this nation. Public service, particularly in law enforcement, demands real sacrifice, and none of it is possible without the families who stand behind us who are serving. I also want to recognize my parents, who are no longer with us. In 1966, they fled communist Yugoslavia and came to the United States in search of freedom, opportunity, and the rule of law. They became naturalized citizens in 1973 and believed deeply in what this country represents: that liberty matters, that hard work matters, and that the law should protect the innocent while holding the guilty accountable. The journey shaped my values and instilled in me a lifelong commitment to protecting freedom under the Constitution. I've spent nearly 34 years in local and federal law enforcement with a singular mission: keeping the American people safe. From my early career as a police officer and detective in New York City through my current service as Deputy Director at ATF, my focus has been clear: identify and dismantle violent criminal organizations, remove dangerous offenders from our streets, and to protect the communities we serve. At ATF, I've had the privilege of working alongside extraordinary professionals: special agents, industry operations investigators, forensic scientists, intelligence analysts, and professional staff who carry out some of the most difficult and dangerous work in law enforcement. ATF's core mission is public safety: targeting violent criminals, disrupting firearms trafficking networks that arm gangs and cartels, investigating bombings and arson, and supporting our partners with world-class forensic and intelligence capabilities. If confirmed, my foremost priority will be to ensure ATF supports President Trump's mandate to make America safer by remaining relentlessly focused on violent crime. ATF's mission is not to burden lawful gun owners or undermine the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional guarantee, and I am committed to protecting and preserving it. Effective law enforcement and respect for civil liberties are not competing goals. They are inseparable obligations. I am equally committed to supporting the men and women of ATF. They deserve clear mission focus, strong leadership, modern tools, and accountability at every level. Excellence will be recognized and misconduct will not be tolerated. Finally, I respect the essential role of Congress and this committee. Oversight is vital to maintaining public trust. If confirmed, I commit to being transparent, responsive, and forthright as we work together to protect the American people. Thank you again for the opportunity to be here before you today. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Ranking Member Durbin. Thank you, members of the committee. I want to begin today by thanking President Trump for the great honor of this nomination.

I also want to thank the Texas senators, Senator Cornyn and Senator Cruz, for recommending me to the White House, for their support throughout this nomination process, and for their very kind introductions today. With me today from Texas is my family. Most importantly, my wife, Rebecca Davis. We've been married 18 years. We met in high school, and none of this would have been possible without her love and support. She has incredible patience, kindness, and has sacrificed much for our family. With us today are also our three kids. They are very excited to be here in D.C. My youngest especially is loving the amount of snow that she's never seen in her life. With me also from Texas, from Lubbock, where my parents still reside, is my parents, Dorothy Davis and Glenn Davis. They are lifelong educators, and I couldn't have asked for a better example of parents. They've shown me strength of character, the ability to live with humility, and what a loving, lasting partnership looks like. Not with us today, but I also want to thank my in-laws, Roger and Mary Satoff, for treating me as one of their own and their support and love throughout the years. Lastly, I want to thank all of the people who've supported me throughout my career in this process that cannot be here today. Specifically in that category, I'd like to thank my first two bosses for whom I had the privilege to clerk: Judge Sidney Fitzwater of the Northern District of Texas and Judge Reena Raggi of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is an honor of a lifetime to be sitting here before you, and I look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, for that generous introduction and for your support. I thank Senator Cassidy for his support as well.

And thank you to all members of the committee for considering my nomination. It is a tremendous honor to be before you today. I thank President Trump for the honor of this nomination. I'm joined today by my husband, Scott. We celebrated our 20-year anniversary last month, and our marriage is one of the great blessings of my life. Another is my children: Charles, Birdie, Anna Douglas, and Jack are also here today. I'm joined as well by my brother Derek, whom along with my other siblings, I'm proud to call not just my family but also my friend. My life has been marked by the generosity of so many mentors, colleagues, and friends who have shared their knowledge, wisdom, and time over the years. I thank those who are here today and to all of my family members and friends who are supporting me from afar. I'd like to say a special thanks to Judge Rhesa Barksdale, for whom I clerked. My clerkship was a foundational experience during which I had the opportunity to see judicial integrity at the highest level. Finally, there are two people who are not here physically today but I know are watching from above. Those are my parents, Libby and Chuck Wagner. They created a foundation of faith and family that I will always carry with me, and I would not be here without their tremendous sacrifice and support. Again, I'm so honored to be here, and I look forward to the committee's questions.

Thank you, Ms. St. John. Now Judge Shepherd.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, members of the committee. I want to thank you for the privilege and the opportunity to appear before you today. I'd like to thank President Trump for the high honor of this nomination. I want to thank Senator Boozman and Senator Cotton for their kind words this morning about myself and my family. I want to thank them for their support throughout the process and for their dedicated service to the nation and the people of the great state of Arkansas. Senator Cotton introduced my family, so I will not list them. There are a lot here. I will mention my sister's kids, who he didn't list and would be upset with me if I did not list them: Shepherd, Rebecca, and John Robert are here supporting me today. Also have a dear friend from law school, friend of my wife and myself, Robin Wright Cleary, who is an exceptional Arkansas attorney who works here and lives here in the Washington, D.C. area. When you live in a small town, you have a lot of support, and I want to thank the people of South Arkansas for their encouragement and support throughout the process. Also, I know they wouldn't forgive me, but my teammates on the Rice football team and coaches who have reached out and supported me, I want to give them a special acknowledgment. I greatly appreciate all their support. Finally, I do want to thank my family for their love and support through the years. I was lucky to be raised in a family that instilled the importance of hard work, public service, and a faith in God. And I know that has carried me through the various chapters in my career and has brought me here today. And I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you, Mr. Shepherd. Now Mr. Wolfe.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, to the committee for considering my nomination. And thank you to President Trump for the great honor of that nomination. I'm also grateful to Senators Cornyn and Cruz for recommending me to the President and for your support along the way and for your very generous introductions. Thank you. I was born and raised in Lubbock, Texas, and I had the great privilege of having parents who love me, who encourage me, and sacrifice for me. My mother, Jill Wolfe, passed away 20 years ago, and my father, Billy Wolfe, passed away three years ago. Both would be incredibly proud that their only child sits before you today. My dad drove trucks and roughnecked when I was young until he finally got admitted into law school when I was in elementary school. I spent my youth traveling with him all over West Texas watching him try cases. And it was during that time that I developed a high view of the law and concluded that being a judge would be a noble calling. Here today with many family and friends that I'll have the time or ability to adequately thank, but I'm so thankful for their support. Also here with my family, starting here with my wife, my amazing wife and best friend Sarah. She's here with five of my six kids: Asher, Samuel, Joseph, Nathan, and our daughter Lois. And our oldest son Graham couldn't be here today, he's currently on deployment as a Navy surface warfare officer. Grateful to be here, happy to answer your questions. Thank you.

Thank you all very much for your opening statements. I'm going to start with Mr. Cekada. We have five minutes each. You've been Deputy Director, you've been there a long time, you know what works and doesn't work. So given your unique perspective, what are your priorities for the Bureau if confirmed?

Good morning, Senator, thank you for your question. I think the top priorities for ATF will remain violent crime in the forms of illegal use of firearms, illegal acts of use of explosives, and criminal acts of arson. We will prioritize those efforts as we work with our state and local partners around the country. As you stated earlier and we discussed two days ago, ATF is a small agency and we are interdependent on our state and local partners. We currently have about 1,400 task force officers. We have firm commitments with our partners to continue using crime gun intelligence, eTrace, NIBIN, and DNA to work with our partners to identify who the scourges of their communities are, the people that are responsible for using firearms illegally to commit violent crime, and ATF will do that as our primary focus. We will also attempt to use the budget that we've been allocated to modernize some critical systems that are used to work with our industry partners with, for example, the forms and licensing systems are over 25 years old, and they're very antiquated and cause significant delays in processing of forms, which unnecessarily burden the American public and the industry members. I think that would be a significant efficiency. And then in turn, we will make sure that during the next several years we follow President Trump's Second Amendment executive order to review all ATF policies, procedures, and regulations to ensure that none of those infringe upon the Second Amendment unnecessarily.

You and I discussed the whistleblower that saved $20 million or exposed $20 million of waste because of fraudulent activity within ATF. Thank you for doing that, but I also hope that that emphasizes: listen to every whistleblower so they never have to come to Congress and seek the protection of whistleblower protection laws. Now to Mr. Davis. You've had an impressive career worked across different branches of government. So how did your work in the different branches of government shape your perspective for being a federal judge?

Thank you, Senator. Specifically in government, the opportunity to serve as a Assistant Solicitor General in Texas was very formative to me in terms of understanding the role in a courtroom. When I became an appellate advocate, argued a number of cases, I learned what it was like to appear in front of judges that would give respect, that were treating cases fairly, impartially, that were seeking to find the right answer and apply the law without fear or favor. One of the things I learned most from working for this body is before I arrived here, I had a sense in my academic career and my practice that legislative history was not something I wanted to rely on if I were to be a judge. And being here taught me about the process of lawmaking. It taught me about how bills become law, taught me about presentment, it taught me all the factors that come into it and that really only the text is the thing that is put forward as law. It's the only thing that survives bicameralism and presentment. And from that experience in being around this body, that formed how I would think about statutory interpretation if I were so lucky as to be confirmed as a judge. Thank you.

Ms. St. John, your advocacy has covered numerous areas of the law including class actions, administrative disputes, and constitutional questions, among others. How have your experiences across these areas of the law prepared you to step into the role of a federal judge, a role which by its nature is necessarily generalized?

I have had the opportunity to handle a number of different types of matters throughout my career. I've been very fortunate in that regard. And so I do believe that I've learned how to approach new areas of the law and get up to speed on them quickly. And throughout that process, I've learned both that the rule of law is the primary centerpiece of the practice, and I have a deep and abiding respect for that.

Thank you. Now I've got just 13 seconds left. Mr. Shepherd, please tell us what you've learned from these roles that have advocacy on both sides of criminal cases that best prepare you for the federal bench.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Can I continue? Can I answer the question?

Yes.

Okay. Well certainly being on both sides of issues, both in the criminal context and the civil context, has been a benefit to me, not only when I was in practice understanding the various arguments that the parties will make. By the nature of being in a small town, I represented plaintiffs and defendants. As was stated, I was a prosecutor and also did criminal defense work as a CJA panel attorney in the Western District. And all of that varied experience I believe gives me a unique perspective that has helped me on the state court bench, certainly, and I believe it would also benefit me if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed to the federal district court.

Thank you. Senator Durbin.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cekada, good meeting in our office. Enjoyed meeting you. Your highest priority you say is stop violent crime. It's a priority well worth your attention and ours as well. At least two-thirds of the ATF agents, 1,778 of the 2,572 agents, have reportedly been diverted from preventing gun violence to carry out the President's immigration agenda. Do you support the President's proposed cuts to ATF?

Good morning, Senator, thank you for your question and thank you for making time to speak with me. That number is incorrect. I think your... I think we discussed that yesterday, two days ago. The number of agents that have been diverted to focus on Title 8 enforcement is actually averaging somewhere between 75 and 100 agents per day. The remainder of ATF agents focus on violent crime throughout the country on a daily basis.

Do you support the idea of diverting ATF agents to engage in immigration enforcement?

I support ATF agents being used to enforce federal statutes and supporting our federal partners. The number of agents that have been used in these efforts have been very much focused on violent crime, specifically assisting HSI and ICE on illegal aliens that are members of MS-13, 18th Street, illegal aliens that are carrying firearms. So in those efforts, 100 percent ATF supports our partners.

Thank you. Ms. St. John, in November 2021, I chaired this committee and we advanced the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. It passed by a voice vote, which is unusual on this committee. It had strong bipartisan support and was signed into law in 2022. Forced arbitration clauses deny sexual assault survivors a day in court and require in many cases that the misconduct be concealed from public view. You testified against this legislation in November of 2021, claiming that forced arbitration, quote, was not in the best interest of those subjected to sexual harassment, ending forced arbitration, not in the best interest of those subjected to sexual harassment and assault. You argued that the bill, quote, turns these women into unwilling pawns, leveraging their private difficulties in pursuit of public policy objectives that don't actually benefit them. Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson was one of the leading advocates for our bill following her harassment by Roger Ailes. She has expressed her concern about your nomination because of your testimony. Here's what she said: While women around the country bravely shared the urgency of eradicating forced arbitration, St. John used her power and influence to gaslight these women in the public. She downplayed their stories and minimized their pain. Instead of listening to women who were forced to suffer in silence, St. John tried to convince Congress that these women's understanding of their own experiences was incorrect. Do you still oppose ending forced arbitration for people who have been sexually harassed or assaulted in the workplace?

Senator, I have deep respect and gratitude for women who speak up against predators and those who sexually harass and abuse women. I certainly did not minimize their stories. I was invited to provide testimony regarding arbitration and out-of-court resolutions. I did provide perspectives on how arbitration can be beneficial and that it can result in and often does result in much higher recoveries for plaintiffs and sexual assault survivors. It's a quicker process and it doesn't require women who may not want to go public to have their names splashed in a public docket or in the news. I respect every party's right to go to court or to resolve their disputes in arbitration, and I don't believe my testimony can be interpreted to be minimizing of women or forcing them to take a certain approach to resolving these very troubling problems in our society.

So you have not changed your position.

Senator, I stand by my testimony, which is that people should have a right to choose arbitration or to go to court. I don't believe I testified against forced arbitration or for forced arbitration.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Lee.

Mr. Cekada, I'd like to start with you if that's all right. I believe that the elimination of the $200 National Firearms Act tax stamp was a significant victory for Second Amendment rights. This is a constitutionally protected right, the right to bear arms, and when we attach a significant tax burden to it, that's got to be taken into account. Now, unfortunately, that didn't eliminate all laws that might fall under the same argument. We've still got pretty significant restrictions in place, including various registration requirements that exist under the National Firearms Act. Not all of which I believe have clear constitutional justification. But even before we get to the constitutional justification, which may tie in to the policy points, I wanted to ask you a little bit about whether and to what extent or in what way there is a law enforcement or other policy-based justification that makes it compelling, makes it make sense, makes it necessary for one reason or another to have these restrictions in place as to things like silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. Can you think of good policy-based law enforcement justification for having those on the books?

Good morning, Senator, thank you for your question. As far as policy, our enforcement of those firearms applies strictly under the NFA. If, let's say for example, they weren't under the NFA, they would still be firearms under the GCA.

Right, so they're not unregulated. And in order to buy them, you would still have to go through the background check process, which is significant. And depending on how busy they are at the time when you're buying a firearm, you may have to wait minutes or it might be hours or whatever it is, but it's not completely unregulated at that point.

That's correct.

So these are additional restrictions slapped on top of those restrictions already applicable to all firearms, is that right?

Yes, sir, through the NFA, that's correct.

Okay. And that certainly grasped that certainly as to the short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Let's talk about the... ...suppressors for a minute, the sound suppressors. Commonly known as silencers, but technical term within the industry is sound suppressors. Tell me what policy justification, I think that one falls as legitimate as the criticism is of these restrictions as to the other items that we've discussed, like short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles. Seems to me to be particularly difficult to justify the additional restrictions as to sound suppressors because sound suppressors are themselves not guns, correct?

Under the law, sir, suppressors are considered firearms under the Gun Control Act. So that's why they're regulated under the GCA, well, they are regulated under both GCA and the NFA.

Right. But unlike actual guns, the suppressor is not capable of firing a bullet. Unlike guns, suppressors are there, as the name implies, to suppress sound. So that people who use guns, whether that's for hunting, for target practice, for sporting of one sort or another, they are subjected to a bombardment of sound that is louder than it otherwise might need to be. And for people who use certain kinds of firearms that happen to be really loud, they've got to use some kind of hearing protection on their ears. The question arises, what decent public policy justification or law enforcement need might compel the United States government, with all the force of the United States government and with enforcement power given to ATF, to restrict those, given that there is a legitimate public policy justification for actually wanting to encourage people to do it because it tends to protect people's hearing? Can you think of any good reason why we should not allow those, or at least why we shouldn't allow them without this additional step above and beyond what applies to firearms generally?

Again, sir, from ATF's perspective, ATF is bound by the law at this point. And if Congress chose to move suppressors out of the NFA into the GCA, ATF would be supportive of Congress's decision.

That is very good to know because we periodically do introduce legislation. And when we do that with basically every department, every agency I'm familiar with, we tend in my office, and I think my colleagues do the same, to seek technical input from the agency involved in the enforcement of that law. And it's good to know in advance sometimes what that might look like. So I appreciate your perspective on this one. Congress does need to revisit these issues, particularly given that sound suppression can be very important for health and safety reasons. There is not a legitimate health and safety reason, certainly, to treat this not just as a firearm, but as a particular type of firearm that requires further restriction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time's expired.

Before Senator Hirono, I'd like to enter into the record a letter supporting Mr. Cekada's nomination from Knox Williams, the president of the American Suppressor Association. It's a gun rights organization. The American Suppressor Association endorsed Mr. Cekada's nomination and praised his, quote, "unwavering commitment to accountability, transparency, and collaboration with law-abiding firearm owners and industry stakeholders," end of quote. Without objection, this will be entered into the record. Senator Hirono.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to all of our nominees, your families and friends. I ask the following two initial questions of all nominees who appear before any of the committees on which I sit as a way to determine fitness of the nominees to serve. So I will start with Mr. Cekada and we'll just go right down the line with the responses to my two questions. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?

Good morning, ma'am. No, I have not.

No, Senator.

No, Senator, I have not.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?

No, I have not.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

No, Senator.

Mr. Davis, as an attorney, you defended Fox News Network when it was sued for defamation by Dominion Voting Systems after the 2020 election. And Dominion alleged that several Fox News reporters made false statements about its voting machines and ultimately Fox News settled for $700 million. So clearly Fox News had trouble telling fact from fiction. It is very important, to say the least, that judges rely on facts to make their decisions. I have one question for you. Did Donald Trump lose the 2020 election? Yes or no?

Senator, President Biden was certified as the president and served four years.

It's very clear that all of our nominees have been coached to respond in that way. And the fact that none of you can acknowledge who actually won the election is pretty disturbing when we are focused on the expectation that judges will rely on facts. This is for Judge Shepherd. You attended Rice University in Houston, Texas, and you have previously stated that you appreciated the diversity of the student body and that diversity, to quote you, "helps better our understanding," I'm putting the word "our" in there, "understanding of the world," end quote. I hope that you still believe that. And I think you must be aware that this administration has a disdain for diversity and DEI programs. In fact, President Trump, one of the first executive orders he issued upon being inaugurated was to direct every department to eliminate any and all support for DEI. And this has led to withholding of funds and even de-emphasizing and eliminating official celebrations and observances of events that can be characterized as supportive of DEI, such as Juneteenth. For example, the National Park has eliminated the fee-free days for Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth and replaced, incredibly, fee-free day celebrating Donald Trump's birthday. You know, the anti-DEI sentiment of this regime, as I refer to it because of its authoritarianism, permeates this administration's priorities. So frankly, any organization celebrating or supporting the diversity of our country is discouraged from doing so. So people are getting the message that that is not a good idea to do that, even if that is their desire. Judge Shepherd, don't you think that anti-DEI could lead to discrimination against minorities, including women, because women are included as part of DEI?

Senator, thank you for the question. The speech you're referring to was a discussion given to prospective college students. And the nature of those comments related to the benefit of going to a school, experiencing different people, the fact that we live in an era there's a global economy and it benefits you to experience diversity in all ranges, not simply race. As your question relates to any legal issues as a sitting judge and a nominee to this position, I can't wade into matters of debate amongst Congress. So under the judicial canons, I cannot answer that question.

I think that you still acknowledge that we live in a diverse country. And I would say that the anti-DEI sentiment definitely creates an environment where discrimination against minorities would be, would happen. So that is disturbing. For Ms. St. John, you were formerly a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum, which had previously advocated for exceptions to the right to access contraception for women. Now, the Supreme Court decisions Griswold and Eisenstadt stand for the proposition that the Constitution protects the right to access contraception. So would you consider these two cases to be settled law and that as a district judge, should you be confirmed, that you would follow those precedents?

If I am so fortunate as to be confirmed as a district court judge, I would be bound by all Supreme Court precedent.

Would you consider the two cases I mentioned to be settled law?

I would have to look and see whether they've been overturned, Senator. If they're binding law, I would apply them.

No.

Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy.

Mr. Davis, did, did I hear Senator Coons correctly say that you were a James Kent scholar at Columbia, like Ms. St. John?

Yes, I'm in good company with Ms. St. John.

Okay. All right. So you were chief counsel to Senator Cruz?

Yes, Senator.

And Senator Cruz is a pretty able lawyer himself. That must have been an interesting job.

I've had the privilege of working for multiple bosses who were phenomenal lawyers. Senator Cruz is the utmost lawyer as a Supreme Court practitioner. He was phenomenal. And I have had also the pleasure to work with many other attorneys. The judges for whom I clerked were both fantastic. So I've had a lot of great mentors and examples throughout my life and career.

In your job, were you around Senator Cruz a lot?

Yes, Senator.

We, we talk a lot about heroes in America, don't we?

Yes, Senator.

People who tolerate Senator Cruz on a daily basis are the real heroes, aren't they? [Laughter.]

Senator, I have nothing but positive things to say about working for Senator Cruz. He was a phenomenal boss and just loved the experience.

Senator Cruz is my friend, man. I realize that's a questionable life choice, but he's my friend. Judge Wolfe, you went to Baylor?

Yes, Senator.

We, we at LSU hired away your women's basketball coach, didn't we?

Coach Mulkey.

You understand we're not giving her back.

I understand.

Okay. Ms. St. John, what's a universal injunction?

A universal injunction refers to an injunction that applies universally beyond the parties to the case.

The Supreme Court has recently had something to say about universal injunctions, has it not?

Yes, Senator.

What did the Supreme Court instruct us?

Well, in Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court held that universal injunctions are disfavored and courts are limited to awarding complete relief as to the parties before the court.

Did, did the Supreme Court talk about class actions in its opinions?

No, Senator, not directly that I recall.

Okay. Do you think one of the arguments as I understand it for universal injunctions, well, it's both an argument for and against, but that it impacts more than just the plaintiffs before the court. Is that correct?

Yes, Senator.

I've heard the argument made that a substitute, some would argue a more efficient substitute for universal injunctions would be a class action lawsuit. What do you think about that?

You know, a class action does allow relief beyond the named representative plaintiff. You know, the class actions have a lot of additional safeguards set forth in Rule 23. And so, you know, it does allow large groups of plaintiffs to come together in one case in a way that may not be, to seek relief in a way that bilateral litigation may not allow, but it does have additional protections.

Okay. Mr., let me go back to Mr. Davis. Since, since we have our ATF nominee in front of us today, I thought I'd ask you a little bit about our Second Amendment. I, I want to buy a bazooka. And I found a good deal on one in Europe. Can, can I buy it and own it and use it here in America?

Senator, I believe that falls under prohibitions in the National Firearms Act. But let me speak more generally because I think, I think that's right, but let me speak more generally to the Second Amendment question, which I believe is what you're getting at. There is a fundamental right enshrined in the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms. And the Supreme Court has said in Heller, written by Justice Scalia, that that is a personal right. It's not a right that is tied to being in a militia. It is a personal right that includes for defense. The Supreme Court has since elaborated on that doctrine, including in Bruen and most recently in Rahimi. It has made clear that the test for Second Amendment rights is whether the right falls within the text, history, and tradition of this country. And so I would need to look specifically at whether a bazooka or a weapon analogous to it would fall under the protection of the Second Amendment using that test, if I were so lucky as to be confirmed as a judge.

Well, under Heller and Bruen, do I have unfettered discretion to own any kind of firearm that I want to?

There have, there are certain exceptions that are listed within the decision in Heller. And for example, machine guns fall under the National Firearms Act. So there are certain exceptions to what arms can be owned. But again, I would go back to the text, history, and tradition test if a case were to come before me as a judge that was asking that question.

Okay. I'm sorry I didn't get to ask everybody questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Whitehouse.

Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Cekada, welcome. Thanks for coming to my office to talk about ballistics tracing. I believe we agree that when local law enforcement roll up to a crime scene and find, for instance, a cartridge in the sidewalk, the quicker that those local police officers can identify the firearm that left that cartridge, it leaves distinctive markings on a cartridge, the better off they are and that can both help officer safety and investigative effectiveness. Is that correct?

Good morning, Senator. Thank you for your time yesterday. And yes, you are correct. You're referring to NIBIN, the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network.

Yep. I look forward to working with you on trying to make sure that the database is robust as possible and that access to the information is as quick as possible in a crime scene at night on a street, you know, you want to know as quickly as you can where that came from. And so I'm glad that we agree on that and look forward to making further progress. Ms. St. John, it looks to me like pretty much every one of your employers has been funded by the Koch political operation, by that I spell it K-O-C-H, Leonard Leo's political and judicial influence operation, or Donors Trust, which is kind of the identity laundering operation for the Koch brothers and others. Given that, how are you going to deal with cases that come before you in which, let's say, the Kochs have an interest? Would you recuse yourself? You seem to be essentially a product of their investment and now you'll be making decisions that could affect their business. Or their politics.

Senator, my current organization, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, does not receive any funding from the Koch brothers. I've never received any indication I need to do any work consistent with their wishes to the extent they were a donor to any organization I've ever been a part of. And as to recusal, I would carefully look at each case and look at the relevant factors for recusal.

Well, the Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to get lots of money, $10 million from Donors Trust and Donors Capital, $400,000 from Koch organizations. Its president became Donors Trust's president. The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute got at least a million and a quarter in litigation grants from Donors Trust. Independent Women's Forum, $300,000 from Leonard Leo's Judicial Education Project, more than $13 million from Donors Trust. So if you think that that's not something that you need to be concerned about as a judge, all that history, then I'm very disappointed to hear that. Mr. Davis, how about qui tam cases? You say they're unconstitutional. A qui tam case comes before you. Are you going to recuse yourself based on your stated opinion that that cause of action should not exist?

Senator, in a capacity not as a nominee, I spoke about qui tam actions. However, there's binding en banc precedent in the Fifth Circuit. If a qui tam case came before me, I would follow that binding circuit precedent.

Yeah, but there's obviously a certain amount of lean in judicial decisions. You're not automatons out there. How would you convince a qui tam plaintiff that you're not going to lean in every subordinate decision along the way against that party's interest because of your expressed views on qui tam?

Senator, in the past, I offered views on one aspect, which was the constitutionality. That is something I have spoken publicly on. But as a nominee and as a judge, if I were so lucky as to be confirmed, I would follow the law faithfully. I would follow all precedent faithfully.

Yeah, I get that. I get that. I get that. But I've also been a lawyer for a long time now and know a lot of judges, spent a lot of time in court. And anybody who's spent a minute in court knows that the judge is not an automaton. And everything from procedural rulings to scheduling rulings to undecided elements of a case allows the judge very substantial leeway. And if you're not prepared to listen to a qui tam plaintiff fairly because you think they're there unconstitutionally, that's something that you should consider as a judge, shouldn't you?

Senator, I disagree that I could not listen to them fairly.

You've said that the cases would be unconstitutional.

Senator, if I were so lucky as to be confirmed, I would follow all precedent. And that includes precedent in the Fifth Circuit that makes clear that qui tam actions are constitutional. I would follow that fully and faithfully.

Yeah, right. My time's up.

Before I call on Senator Blackburn, I want to remind you, Mr. Davis, I'm author of the 1986 qui tam legislation. It's brought $86 billion of fraudulently taken money back into the federal treasury. Senator Blackburn.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I always find it so interesting that our colleagues across the dais want to talk about money and yet the Soros Foundation and the millions they have put into different nonprofits and efforts of influence are really quite astounding. They, they're the record breaker. Mr. Cekada, I want to come with you and thank you for your time. We talked yesterday about the Memphis Safe Task Force. President Trump, AG Bondi, Director Patel have done a great work with all the federal agencies in Memphis. And as I told you yesterday, they have made more than 6,500 arrests. They've taken 1,500 illegal firearms off the streets. They have found 148 missing children. And it's a joint effort. You've got all these federal and state agencies that are there. ATF is a part of this. And talk about what you would do as director to support the effort of the Memphis Safe Task Force, which has cut crime in Memphis by over 50 percent. And I'd like to hear what you would do to not only for, not only Memphis, but other cities to keep them safe and free of these criminals.

Good morning, Senator. Thank you for your time. And again, thank you for making time to speak to me yesterday. ATF is proud partner of the Memphis Safe Task Force, as we are in the Make DC Safe and Beautiful Task Force as well. As everyone knows, ATF is a small federal agency. We have about 40 ATF agents in Memphis that are assigned to this task force. And we've made up for about 32 percent of the federal cases that have been brought forward in Memphis for federal firearms violations. So our small team is a significant contributor. And I think someone called us the can-do agency earlier. And I plan on continuing to support that task force. We as an agency every year like to have surge operations around the country in cities like Memphis and DC that are being impacted by violent crime. We don't do it alone. We work, we always work with our state and local partners, with other federal partners to ensure that we are using a whole-of-government approach to make the largest impact on violent crime in those communities.

Well, we appreciate the number of these cases that have been able to be tried federally. We have a weak DA in Memphis. And so getting these into federal court, it has been helpful in making the city safe. Judge Wolfe, let me come to you and talk a little bit about sentencing because the Western District of Texas really has a high volume of federal cases, immigration, drug, firearms cases that are there, other criminal offenses. So talk with me about how you would approach the federal sentencing guidelines and whether you believe there are circumstances where a judge should deviate from those recommendations.

Thank you, Senator. I had the great privilege of being in the US Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Texas for about 15 years. Microphone. Thank you, Senator. I had the great privilege of being in the US Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Texas for about 15 years. So I got to see a lot of outstanding judges handle these issues who were faithful to the law. Of course, when it comes to sentencing, you have 3553(a) factors. You have to look at the history and characteristics of the defendant and nature and circumstances of the offense. Every now and then, of course, a judge, if a judge feels like that a sentence should go outside the guidelines, that they have a duty to articulate why they think that should happen on the record, why they think the guidelines aren't reasonable.

Mr. Cekada, let me come back to you on firearms cases. When you're talking about these federal firearms cases, what's the proper role of the ATF in enforcing those federal laws while also respecting the constitutional rights of the individual and the Second Amendment?

Thank you for your question, Senator. ATF's, I think, in a unique position. We have the ability to use crime gun intelligence. I mentioned that earlier. It's intel that we gain from eTrace, from NIBIN, and now DNA. So ATF is not driving around neighborhoods or going through people's homes looking to burden legal firearms owners with our enforcement actions. When ATF comes into a neighborhood, we've used intelligence to identify who the people are responsible for violent crime and hold those people accountable to the fullest extent of the federal authorities allowed by law. When we do that, we've seen significant impacts and significant sentences that not only remove those people from those communities that they've been terrorizing, but serve as a significant deterrent for others that would choose that path as well.

Thank you.

Senator Booker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cekada, I'm actually really grateful you're here and really relieved by your nomination. Your years of dedicated service are something I have a lot of just a lot of respect for and gratitude for. I've met so many ATF agents over the years and have found them to be remarkably committed professional public servants. And the fact that you would lead the agency that has so many means a lot to me. I'm worried obviously about the direction of the ATF. I have been for years since I was a mayor and we found out that the overwhelming majority of our gun crimes were done with people who acquired guns illegally. If we were just enforcing the laws, we could have driven down violence as much as I advocate for other gun safety laws. The ones we have right now, should the ATF be given the resources and manpower to enforce the law, we could save a lot of lives in our country. And so unfortunately, that since the president's inauguration a year ago, the ATF has really been under attack from further attacks from the gun industry and high-ranking administration officials. Trump proposed gutting the ATF's budget by $400 million, already starved as an agency. The administration has diverted thousands of ATF agents away from investigating illegal firearm trafficking, bombing, tax evasion, and tracing guns from violent crimes to their perpetrators to instead do immigration enforcement. And this has primarily resulted in the rounding up of non-violent immigrants and not getting weapons out of the hands of people that are doing horrible things with them. The administration even suggested eliminating the ATF altogether, which is stunning to me to hear this administration wanting to defund the police that do some of the most important work for keeping us safe. And so I have a few questions just about the direction of the agency. And I just want to emphasize again my gratitude that you're up for this position, but the importance of you maintaining your independence and not giving the gun industry or others who want to defund you any sway over the decisions you make. And so I just want to say for the record, if you can just state, do you think abolishing or defunding ATF would risk public safety?

Good morning, Senator. Thank you for your comments. I think ATF plays a pivotal role in America's communities on reducing violent crime. And although I can't control the budgets, I think there would be a negative impact on America's communities.

Thank you very much. A simple yes would have sufficed, but that's, I appreciate that. So this legislation is obviously misguided. I hope that you will take steps to ensure that... ...that the ATF is fully staffed, fully resourced, able to get its mission to protect the public from violent crime. Since '07, when I first met with the head of the acting head of the ATF, they just told me the blunt truth about how much more they could do with more officers, and I hope that you'll advocate for that. The diversion of agents to conduct immigration enforcement, we know that Trump authorized ATF agents to conduct arrests of immigrants without permanent legal status. By September, about 80 percent of the ATF's roughly 2,500 agents had been assigned to the immigration task force at some point. How many ATF agents are currently assigned to the Department of Homeland Security to conduct immigration enforcement?

Sir, ATF has never had more than about 100, 75 to 100 agents on a day working on immigration enforcement in support of ICE and HSI.

So you said about 100 currently at any time?

No more than 100 at any given time.

Okay. Have the diversions impacted ATF's capacity to enforce our national firearms laws?

Not from our perspective. ATF in those operations has been focused on offenders that were illegally armed with firearms, MS-13, 18th Street, illegal aliens in possession.

I, again, I'm well aware and frankly grateful for the work that you do. It's just hard for me to believe that 100-plus agents taken out of that important work going to arrest people with no criminal records is not taking you away from your work. More agents doing that work, I find, would probably help keep us much safer from the violent crime that is most concerning to the American public. I'd like to enter into the record an article from The Trace, which quotes David Hamilton, a former senior special agent who retired in 2021. He said, and I quote, "It is hugely disruptive. You work on a complex federal investigation for years in the making, which includes covert gun buys and intercepts and wiretaps. Now they're being told you can't work at all on that investigation for an indefinite period of time. Most of those leads are going to die on the vine." That's a former agent that has a lot of experience that counters this testimony that taking that many agents away doesn't undermine your mission. I want to ask one last question. Previous administrations...

Without objection, the documents made a part of the record. I'm so grateful for you, sir. You're welcome. I'm grateful for you. I'd be even more grateful if you'd begin to wrap up, my good friend. I will wrap up with this last question. You with a gavel is a terrifying thing, so I'm going to remove myself as quickly as possible. I've got the gavel now. [Gavel sounds.] Just please don't throw it at me, sir. I know your arm's pretty good. I wouldn't do that. Okay, the last question and then I'm done. Previous administrations have released data about dealer inspections and trafficking investigations initiated by ATF at regular intervals. None of that data has been released during the past year of this administration. Is that something you're willing to do under your leadership? How many dealer inspections has the ATF conducted since January 2025? Briefly, sir. Yes, sir. I don't have the number of inspections that we've conducted with me, but we can provide you with that answer after the hearing. We've continued to do dealer inspections uninhibited. I would like to put on the record I have no clue who Mr. Hamilton is, and I've been here for 21 years, almost, and I go back to 1994 when I was a task force officer working with ATF, so almost 32 years. We are working Title III, RICO, gang cases. I challenge his statement as to the work that ATF is doing. We do have about 100 people working on immigration enforcement, but we are not impacting violent crime in a negative way as a result of that work that we're doing with Title VIII. Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cekada, I want to ask you, during the Biden administration first, that ATF issued several administrative rules that violated statutory authorities that were enacted by Congress. In a previous life, when I was Attorney General Missouri, helped lead one of the lawsuits against one of those rules, the frame or receiver rule. Eventually, a different lawsuit came up against the rule and the Supreme Court sort of sidestepped the ultimate issue on that. But there are similar rules such as the stabilizing brace rule and the engaged in business rule that threaten to make responsible law-abiding Americans into criminals and left gun owners with vague, difficult-to-follow mandates. Americans who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights and follow the law in good faith lacked any real guidance and felt like the ATF was trying to trap and punish them. The Second Amendment is a fundamental inalienable right, so it's especially concerning when administrative state agencies like ATF infringe not only on the Second Amendment but also the Constitution's structural separation of powers by issuing rules that are equal parts illegal and impossible to comply with. I understand you want the ATF to return to a true law enforcement mission rather than harassing law-abiding gun owners, so I want to ask you today if you'll commit to repealing or otherwise fixing this nightmare scenario for gun owners by revisiting the frame and receiver rule, the stabilizing brace rule, and the engaged in business rule, and any other overreaching administrative rules in a timely manner.

Good morning, Senator. Thank you again for your question. I can assure you that ATF under my direction is following President Trump's Second Amendment executive order. We are currently undergoing a thorough review of all regulations. I can't speak to the specific regulations because of the guidance under APA. In the future, when the President and the Department of Justice team that are work is ready to be put out for a notice of proposed rulemaking, there will be a draft of all those rules for everyone to review, and we fully encourage everyone to please review those, ask your constituents to do the same to make sure that ATF thoroughly took those concerns into. So if I hear you right, if you're reviewing all of the rules, the three that I mentioned would be included in that, correct? Potentially. What's that? Potentially, sir. I can't... Let's lock that in. Let's lock that in. I can't do that, sir, but I would be glad to tell you... Okay, I think follow-up on that particular point will be important. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. As it relates to another issue, the ATF is the primary regulator of the commercial explosives industry, as you know. It has been more than two decades since the last comprehensive review of ATF's regulations for commercial explosives occurred. What's your plan to modernize these regs that are at this point pretty outdated? So those are part of our review as well, sir, and unfortunately, I can't give you any specificity, and I apologize. I don't want you to think I'm being challenging with you. No, that's all right. We'll have time to follow up. I appreciate it. As for the judges, thanks for being here. Congratulations. I want to, in my time, I referenced my previous life, I found that perhaps the most important character traits in the legal profession these days is common sense and courage. You're endeavoring in an effort, it's a lifetime appointment, which is very important and for good reason. The tactics of intimidation at this point by the left principally are pretty intense. And so I want to ask, and some of the decisions may not be popular at cocktail parties or in social circles or with the Washington press corps or whatever, but I think it's really important to have judges that understand what the law is and are willing to uphold their convictions with those decisions that are really important for the future of our country. So I guess I want to ask each one of you, can you give me an instance where you were confronted with a scenario that maybe it wasn't the most popular thing in the world to do, but it was the right thing to do and that you stuck to your guns even though there was a lot of pressure to do otherwise?

Certainly, Senator, I'm happy to start. Through both my role... Briefly, folks. Yes, in both my role in the Texas Attorney General's Office and my role serving this body, I worked on many issues that had polarizing effects. People thought very strongly one way or the other, and I made sure to follow the law and advocate for the position that I was supporting in both those positions. Yes, Senator. Thank you.

Senator, in my work on class action fairness, I'm often representing class members objecting to settlements where both the defendants and the plaintiffs want to have the settlement approved. And so I'm often very unpopular walking into the courtroom, and I have no problem standing up for the rule of law because I know it's the right thing to do.

Senator, as a sitting state court judge in a rural part of Arkansas, small town, pretty much any case I preside on, there are people that know people. There's a lot of ethical issues that you've got to deal with, and frankly, any decision I make, there's a chance someone's going to be upset with me. And so I believe that my year on the bench that I have made decisions in accordance with the law without fear or favor.

Senator, I would say that this comes up quite a bit in sentencing. You have defendants before you who are real people who are facing significant sentences. You also have victims who are real people who want their day in court. And so you have to listen to the arguments from both sides, but at the end of the day, you have to be courageous and make the right decision. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, I've got to go vote. Senator Schmitt is going to preside. Before I go, I want to do one thing. Is Mr. Charles St. John here? Charles, do you have anything you want to add about your mom? [Laughter.] How about vote for her? [Laughter.] Thanks, man. Senator, you're a good man, Charles. Don't go into politics. Go to med school. [Laughter.] Senator Schmitt in the chair. Senator Blumenthal. Senator, have you voted yet? Senator, I would be happy to yield to Senator Schiff. Okay, I was just doing what I was told. I was told you were up. Senator Schiff. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Appreciate the courtesy. Mr. Cekada, thank you for taking the time to sit down with me yesterday. I just want to follow up on Senator Booker's question. You mentioned at any one time 100 agents could be essentially reassigned to work on immigration cases. That's 100 agents out of how many overall?

Good morning, Senator. That's 100 agents out of the total agent cadre, which is about 2,400 agents.

And I think when we got together, you mentioned that you still have to do some considerable hiring to get up to the capacity you need?

Yes, sir. The administration has directed us to increase our special agent numbers up actual special agents up to 3,000 agents, which would bring us additional 800 or so agents to get to that number.

And what is the need for the additional 800 agents?

Completely stay focused on violent crime in the United throughout the United States and our cities most impacted by violent crime.

And the additional increment of 800 agents, would it enable you to go after more violent crime?

Yes, sir.

Doesn't that indicate then that taking 100 agents away from dealing with violent crime to focus on immigration when you're already short 800 agents is going to have an impact on the mission?

I think that look, any anytime we work on the areas that we're responsible for, whether it's tobacco, arson, or explosives, are all ATF's purview. Title VIII was assigned to us as a purview earlier in 2025. So in support of the administration's mission and also in support of our partners at HSI, we've done our best to have that be the least impactful, especially while we stayed focused on violent offenders that were illegal aliens, again, gang members as I mentioned to you in our conversation. And just recently, this just this week, we had in Title VIII operations a person that threatened federal law enforcement with a rifle and put on social media that they were going to empty a clip of 30 rounds into agents standing on the street. ATF agents promptly identified that person and removed that offender from the streets.

Mr. Cekada, I appreciate that, but I think it's really incontestable that if you need more agents to go after violent criminals that are using guns and the commission of crimes, then diverting some of the agents you already have, 100 agents, to work on immigration enforcement, often generally involving people who have no criminal record apart from being undocumented, is going to dilute your effectiveness. But let me turn to another topic, and that is we discussed the issue of these 3D printers and the printing of weapons. Are you seeing a trend here? Are we seeing more of these ghost guns show up in crime? Has it plateaued? What is the trend? How concerned are you about it, and what do you think we can do about it?

Again, thank you. We are seeing a trend as it relates to ghost guns, and I'll include in your definition of guns as a we also are looking at personally privately made firearms as the description we use for 3D-printed firearms and for drop-in auto sears, which can convert firearms to shoot fully automatically. This is a trend that we are seeing. Some of these items are printed here within the United States on a printer that can be purchased for a few hundred dollars, and others are being brought into the United States through China. ATF has seen trends where these products are showing up primarily in jurisdictions that have very strict firearms regulations. In other areas of the country, we don't see much proliferation of these types of firearms. So regardless, ATF is focused on identifying those sources. And I'm sorry to tell you again, but we use all the tools we have to try to identify who's manufacturing these 3D-printed firearms. And one of the greatest tools we have is our laboratory here in Ammendale, Maryland. They have the ability to identify the types of polymers that are used and understand where those polymers came from so that we can try to identify whether that firearm after it was made traveled in interstate commerce. But we also use DNA to identify DNA profiles that were present for the manufacture of that firearm as well.

One last quick question. Are you seeing a trend in terms of what kind of crimes are being perpetrated with these weapons?

Yes, sir. Unfortunately, when prohibited persons find their way into receiving firearms, it's generally a gun crime of some sort, whether it's a shooting, an armed robbery, or other crime of violence.

Okay. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you. Senator Hawley.

Thank you very much. Thank you to all of the nominees for being here. Congratulations to each of you. It's great to see you. Mr. Cekada, let me just start with you, if I could. Let's start with the Second Amendment. Missouri, I think that we've got to be the strongest protector of the Second Amendment anywhere in the country. We've got we're a constitutional carry state. We have no state-level permit requirements for concealed carry. Our Constitution, our state Constitution, inscribes the right to keep and bear arms and designates it unalienable in our state Constitution. It subjects any restriction on that right under our state Constitution to strict scrutiny. So we're very, very serious about it, and the state has repeatedly, repeatedly signaled, and we're talking now about voters who have adopted this. This isn't just the state legislature. These are our voters who have put this into our state Constitution. We've repeatedly said we don't want the federal government encroaching on our right to keep and bear arms in the state of Missouri. The last administration, however, did this repeatedly, repeatedly. Back in 2022, the Biden DOJ actually asked local sheriffs across Missouri for records of concealed carry permit holders, which state law explicitly forbids the sheriffs to turn over. So you can imagine the conflict there. I mean, here you've got DOJ saying give us your records, and they're saying, well, the state law forbids it, criminalizes it. You're asking me to turn over something that's illegal under state law. And the bigger question is, why do you need records lists of concealed permit holders in the state of Missouri? Why would the federal government need to have this? They asked for it from multiple counties. They also, as you know, pursued the zero-tolerance revocation policy, the expanded frame or receiver rule, all things that Missouri and Missourians have viewed as massive overreach onto our Second Amendment rights. Here's my question for you. Can you commit that under your leadership, ATF will go in a different direction than the last administration, that you'll focus your law enforcement resources on criminals as opposed to law-abiding citizens who have rights under both the federal and state Constitutions? What's your answer?

Good morning, Senator. Thank you for your question. I can assure you with absolute certainty that ATF, first of all, under my watch as the Deputy Director since April of last year, has 1,000 percent been focused on holding people accountable who have committed violent crimes. We're not here trying to burden unnecessarily the American citizen who has the complete right to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, and we will not be doing that in the future if I am so confirmed.

You've got 20 years of experience over that, I think, at the ATF and then a lot of experience in anti-gang enforcement with NYPD. Just give us a sense of how you'll bring that experience to bear to ensure that the operational resources, should you be confirmed, the operational resources of the agency will be prioritized towards dismantling violent criminal networks, illegal firearm trafficking networks, and the like. How are you going to ensure that this is the priority, not querying the lists of permit holders in my state, for example?

Yes, sir. So first off, unlike some prior ATF directors, I will still be a sworn law enforcement officer if I am confirmed. I've done this job from the ground level, police officer, learning to be an investigator, a task force officer with ATF. I have 34 years of experience of not telling people to go out and make cases. I made the cases myself. So I know what it takes. I know that we can't do it alone because we're a small agency. I've worked with practically every ATF agent that's actually out here making cases. We all know each other, and here at ATF, we respect federal law enforcement officers that do the job, not talk about doing the job. And those of us that have done the job, we know to stay focused on violent criminals, and that's what you pay us for, and we will continue to do that.

Terrific. Terrific. Thank you. I look forward to working with you. Let's talk a little bit about nationwide injunctions here with the judicial nominees. By the way, congratulations to all the judicial nominees. This is going very well for you because there's nobody in the room on the dais, so that's when you know this things are you're doing great. You're doing great. Let's just talk a little bit about what you understand the scope of your equitable power to be when it comes to granting injunctive relief to non-parties who are in front of you. This is something that we've seen happen repeatedly over the years. We've seen Republican-appointed judges do it. We've seen Democrat-appointed judges do it. Give me your understanding of what it is, what kind of equitable injunctive relief you can grant to a non-party should you be confirmed. Let's just go down the dais and we'll start with you, Mr. Davis.

Thank you, Senator. The governing case on this is the Supreme Court's recent case in Casa, which made clear that district court's power is limited to providing full relief to the parties before it. So there's no ability to simply provide relief to parties that are not before the court simply because that is the policy view of the judge or something. It needs to be limited to the parties and full relief.

Good. Very good. Ms. St. John.

I concur with Mr. Davis's response.

Okay. Mr. Shepherd.

Senator, I concur with my colleagues.

Mr. Wolfe.

Senator, under Trump v. Casa, judges, district judges lack authority to provide for relief for parties not before them when they're using equitable power.

Good. Okay. So I'm glad we're clear on it. It sounds like everybody agrees that you you cannot bind as a district court judge. It would be your understanding that you're not able to use your equitable powers, which injunctive relief of course is inherently equitable. You're not able to use those powers to bind non-parties who are before you. Is that we all agree on that? Yes, Mr. Davis? Yes, Senator. Ms. St. John? Yes, Senator. Mr. Shepherd? Yes, Senator. And Mr. Wolfe? Yes, Senator. Okay. I've got some other questions that I will give for you to give to you for the record. I just want to say in closing with regard to you in particular, Mr. Davis, and I'm sorry that Senator Cruz is not here. You served with Senator Cruz for a number of years, and it's a little bit like that episode of The Simpsons, I think, where Lisa's in a science project and it's like a great project and the judges look at it and like, yeah, very impressive. And then they go and meet Homer, and they come back to Lisa and they say, having met your father, we're awarding you bonus points. Having served with your former boss, I'm awarding you bonus points. Mr. Davis, you're going to be tremendous. You're all going to be tremendous. Congratulations.

Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Schmitt asked you about moments of your career where courage was demanded. And so I'm going to pose to you some questions that may provoke that kind of moment. Let me ask each of you, beginning with Mr. Davis, who won the popular vote in 2020?

Senator, in 2020, President Biden was certified and served four years as President.

Who won the popular vote?

Senator, the same answer. President Biden was certified.

Ms. St. John?

Senator, Joe Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election and served four years.

Judge Shepherd?

Senator, President Biden was certified the winner and served four years.

Mr. Wolfe?

Same answer, Senator.

Same answer. Once again, refusing to acknowledge who won the popular vote. I am insulted as a member of this body that you simply won't tell us the truth. And that speaks chillingly of what you will do as a United States district judge if you're confirmed. Let me ask each of you, who won the Electoral College in the 2020 election?

Senator, in 2020, President Biden was certified and served four years as President.

Ms. St. John?

Same answer, Senator.

Judge Shepherd?

Senator, same answer.

Mr. Wolfe?

Same answer, Senator.

Don't you feel kind of like monkeys or puppets here, having been given that answer by your minders without standing up and speaking out what the truth is? Let me ask you this question, Mr. Davis. Was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6, 2021?

Senator, any characterization of the events that occurred on January 6 would wade into political waters. As a sitting nominee for a federal judicial position, it would be inappropriate under the canons of judicial conduct for me to discuss anything that would characterize it.

Have you seen video footage of the attack?

Yes, Senator.

And what did you see in those videos?

Senator, again, describing that in ways I think the video speaks for itself and people can draw their own inferences. Anything more than that would be getting into characterizing.

You're not going to be sitting on a case involving the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol. To tell us you won't answer this question is an insult to our intelligence. Ms. St. John. Was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6, 2021?

Senator, as Mr. Davis stated, I believe it would be inappropriate as a judicial nominee to weigh in on these political controversies.

I'm not asking you to weigh in. I'm asking you to answer a question.

Senator, under the judicial canons of conduct, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to do so.

Which rule of the code of conduct?

It would be Canon 5, sir.

Canon 5 bars you from answering a simple factual question, was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6? Have you seen a video of that attack?

I have, sir.

And what did you see in the video?

Again, as Mr. Davis stated, multiple judicial nominees have responded to this question.

Well, if you're honest with this committee, what you saw is a bunch of insurrectionists attacking the Capitol with all manner of weapons, some of them lethal. Judge Shepherd, was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6, 2021?

Senator, as a sitting judge and nominee, I would echo the comments of my colleagues.

You're a sitting state court judge.

That's correct, Senator.

You have a case before you dealing with January 6?

I do not, Senator.

Mr. Wolfe, was the United States Capitol attacked on January 6, 2021?

Senator Blumenthal, I'd give the same answer as my colleagues.

Same answer. You've all been carefully rehearsed. You are going to be on the bench if you're confirmed, carefully rehearsed for what you will say about the Constitution and the statutes without the kind of courage that you should be expected to show in that position, a position of trust more serious than any other in our government with a lifetime tenure. I think you failed the test. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here and congratulations to each of you on your nomination. Mr. Cekada, how do you say it? Cekada.

Cekada, yes, ma'am.

Okay, Cekada. I want to start with you. I know many Americans have been concerned with the ATF's history, particularly as it relates to the Second Amendment. But based on your testimony here today and your track record at the ATF, I have full confidence that under your leadership, the ATF will not make the same mistakes that we've seen them make in the past, particularly in the Biden administration. But that being said, I want to ask you about a couple of different areas of ATF's jurisdiction. First, I'd like you to speak to some of ATF's work in combating the constant flow of illicit Chinese vapes that have been coming into our nation and truly putting our children at risk. I know ATF was involved in a recent seizure of more than about, I think, 2 million illegal vapes and vaping products. I want to commend you on that great success. But can you speak to some of the work that you've done to prevent those Chinese vapes from harming American children, and how do you commit to working when confirmed on moving that forward?

Good morning, Senator. Thank you for your question. If confirmed, ATF will continue to work with our federal partners at the Food and Drug Administration, Customs and Border Protection, DEA, the Postal Service. We are working tirelessly together to identify these importers that are undoubtedly coming from China but very closely affiliated with the cartels in Mexico. The cartels are very much tied to the distributors that we find spread around the country that are selling these illicit vapes to our minors, to our children in school districts, and frankly, they've strategically placed themselves around our military bases and are targeting our service members. Again, these are chemicals that are unregulated that are undoubtedly causing harm to our children and our...

...youth and the same threat is being posed against our younger service members. And we will continue doing that. Again, we have resources that we are trying to balance across the country. In many of these cases, violent crime is tied to them. There's illegal firearms that are found at these distributors and retailers. There's gang members and illegal aliens that are involved in this distribution as well. So we will stay focused on this as well if I am confirmed.

Good. I'd like to work with you on that when you're confirmed. I think this is an area where we're just scratching the surface. You just alluded to it in your answer, but we know when we get there, not only is it harming children, not only are we looking at what's happening at our military bases, but a lot of times this unlocks just a world of crime that unfortunately puts Americans at risk. And I think we need to do more to crack down on this. So I appreciate that. Additionally, I want to discuss some of the great work that the ATF does in Huntsville, Alabama, at Redstone Arsenal. As you know, ATF's National Center for Explosives Training and Research is located in Huntsville and is a national hub for life-saving explosives training. Can you highlight some of the important work that the ATF is doing there at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville?

Sure, ma'am. So the NCETR works primarily to ensure that our state and local law enforcement officers are prepared to handle some of the biggest threats that our country faces as it relates to explosives. In particular, improvised explosives devices that are made from household chemicals and chemicals that are found at Home Depot and Lowe's. These are recipes, frankly, that have been compiled from our international terrorist organizations and have spread amongst the internet through social media outlets and pose a definite threat to our country. We work very closely with the Army and have developed a program called the Raven's Challenge. Raven's Challenge is something that ATF distributes on behalf of the Army with our partners with the FBI working alongside with us to ensure that our state and local partners are trained on handling a mass casualty event that would be tied to a homemade explosives or improvised explosives incident. So it ensures that we all know how to work together, responding and working in our areas of expertise without unnecessarily hindering the other from being able to accomplish the mission.

Thank you. I look forward to continuing the great work that's done there and partnering with you once confirmed to continue to elevate it. Last question for all of you, and I'm sure you're glad that all of my questions went to him. I'll start with you, Judge Wolfe, and then we'll just go down the line. But obviously, I believe that judges should apply the law faithfully, not legislate from the bench. And I think as a district court judge, you must also abide by the precedent established by the Supreme Court. From time to time, you're going to face legal questions that may not have been addressed or fully addressed by the upper chamber. And my question for you is, with that being the case, can you discuss, and then we'll go down the line, your general philosophy and how you will approach those novel questions of law that come before you?

Thank you, Senator. I would say that I'm a textualist and originalist. And of course, those two have interplay between each other. Of course, textualism, you're trying to discern what exactly does the text say, what's before us. And then originalism is simply saying that the Constitution and laws before us have to be interpreted by their original public meaning, that is in accord with what would have been understood at the time of their enactment. Another way to say that would be that the meaning remains unchanged until properly ratified or properly ratified or amended.

Okay.

Senator, I would echo many of the comments of Judge Wolfe. I would say if there's no binding precedent on the issue, if it's a question of statutory law, I would look at the plain reading of the text. If there's no ambiguity, that should answer the question. If there is ambiguity, certainly considering what is the original public meaning, as Judge Wolfe mentioned, would be where I would look to inform that decision.

Excellent.

Thank you, Senator. I don't have much to add to my co-nominees' descriptions of textualism and originalism. Those are also what I would apply in that situation.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I agree with my friends.

Excellent. Well, on that note, I want to say thank you to all the nominees for your testimony today. Written questions for the record may be submitted up until February 11 at 5:00 PM. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. [Gavel sounds.]