Hearings to examine certain pending nominations.

Good afternoon, everybody. We welcome you to today's hearing. We have four district court nominees, Michael Hendershot, Northern District, Ohio, Arthur Jones, Southern District, Texas, Jeffrey Kuntz, Southern District, Florida, John Mark, Southern District. Texas. In a moment I'll turn to our visitors to introduce the nominees. But first I'd like to say a few words. Over the weekend we witnessed another assassination attempt against President Trump and members of his cabinet. This is the third attempt in two years, which is unprecedented in our nation's history. The latest attack occurred at the White House correspondence dinner. a bipartisan event dedicated to freedom of speech and freedom of press. So this is not just an attack on the president, but also the first amendment. I've repeatedly encouraged all Americans to stop violent rhetoric that led to these attacks. We cannot allow this to become a norm in our country. We must solve our differences through discussion and debate, not violence. I wanna echo President Trump's statement from that evening, we all need to set aside differences and unify Americans. I appreciate Director Kern's commitment to transparency and for quickly briefing me and Senator Durbin about the shooting. I'd also like to commend the brave law enforcement officers who acted swiftly to prevent the attack on from escalating further. My prayers are with a secret servant agent who was injured and his family. The political violence we witnessed on Saturday night has many causes, but one of them is the orchestrated and intentional fomentation of division among Americans. So I was encouraged when Acting Attorney General Todd Blanch announced last week that a federal grand jury indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center. The indictment alleges the Southern Poverty Law Center has been funding extremist groups, paying more than three million to leaders of the Ku Klux Klan and the National Socialist Movement. Although the SPLC has long claimed that it it's fighting against these groups, the allegations paint a very different picture. For example, The indictment alleges that the SPLC, petty person involved in the planning of the infamous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, events like that that flame fanned the flames of division and hatred within our country. The hypocrisy of the Southern Pover- Poverty Law Center is truly astounding. It labels groups like Focus on the Family and Moms for Liberty, as extreme as hate groups, but it's now charged with apparently funneling money to actual hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan. Given what's come to light, I'm astonished that the Biden administration shelved its investigation of the organization, and I applaud Blanche's leadership. and the Justice Department for their important work on this case. Of note then, Director Reyes, FBI used the PLC as an information source for anti-Catholic Richmond memo. Director Patel has since rightly put an end to the FBI use of the southern proba- uh, poverty law centers as a source. We need to root out groups that are intentionally sowing hatred. and division in America, wha which leads to political violence. Investigating groups like the Southern Publ- uh Private Poverty Law Center is a good first step towards lowering the temperature in our nation and hopefully preventing incidents like this one that we witnessed Saturday night. Turning to today's agenda, we have four highly qualified district court nominees. Mr. Jones and Mr. Mark are career prosecutors. Mr. Hanershach spent the past fifteen years in the Ohio Chief, as Ohio's Chief Deputy Solicitor General. And Judge Koontz has served as an appellant judge in Florida for the last decade. They have diverse backgrounds, but they've all demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law and a steadfast devotion to protecting Americans. We'll hear more about each of these nominees from our introducing senators and I look forward to hearing from each of them. S- Senator Durbin.

Thank you, Chairman, and welcome back.

Welcome back. Glad to be back.

Congratulations to the nominees. I thank the Chairman for his accommodation in shifting the time of this hearing, uh, because of a conflict, uh, earlier today. I hope it didn't cause great inconvenience to the families and friends of our nominees. At the outset, I want to join the chairman in addressing the shooting over the weekend at the White House correspondence dinner. As I've said many times before, there is no excuse for political violence from the right or the left. I'm grateful to the Secret Service for protecting the attendees and the President and quickly apprehending the suspect. I'm relieved the agent who was shot was protected by his bullet-proof vest and appears to be moving toward recovery. Turning to today's hearing, the nominees before us are being considered for lifetime appoint appointments to the federal bench. Judges are truly the bulwark for the role of law, which has never been more important as this administration has weaponized the Justice Department against targets political targets. Last week we learned the FBI investigated a New York Times journalist. Why was this journalist investigated? Because she reported that the FBI Director, Kash Patel, was using FBI resources to provide his girlfriend with security and transportation. The FBI agents went so far as to recommend an investigation into whether the reporter broke federal stalking laws by seeking to interview the director, the FBI's girlfriend. Yesterday, DOJ brought its second baseless indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. Now, I may not be a big fan of Mr. Comey politically. But this is really unusual. This prosecution was personally ordered by the President of the United States, who, it appears, will never forgive Mr. Comey for overseeing the investigation as to whether there was any Russian interference in the twenty sixteen election. This is the second attempt of this administration to indict this man. The president's obsession with the Ju- Russian investigation has also led to the Justice Department's investigation of a so-called quote grand super- conspiracy against him. This forfeit mega-theory claims that Deep State has been involved in a conspiracy against President Trump that began with the intelligence assessment with Russia, who they claim was uh who it was claimed was interfering in the twenty sixteen election and continued through special counsel Jack Smith's investigation. We spend meeting after meeting of this committee to talk about Jack Smith's investigation ironically Mister Smith who has agreed to appear before this committee months ago and to testify and answer all questions under oath,

Mm-hmm.

has never been called by the Republican majority in the Senate. And inconveniently for grand conspiracy advocates. Then-Senator Marco Rubio led a bipartisan intelligence committee investigation that found what he called, quote, " Irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling in the election." Another problem is the investigation of Special Counsel John Durham, appointed during the first Trump administration to investigate the Russian investigation. Trump promised Durham would uncover, quote, " the crime of the century." But he spent four years and millions of dollars to no avail. No matter, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanchett is forging ahead in a desperate attempt to placate the president. The first step was menu venue shopping. Justice Department opened this investigation in Fort Pierce, Florida. Why Fort Pierce, Florida? Because MAGA loyalist, Aline Cannon, is the only federal judge sitting in that courthouse. So she has been known to rubber stamp the Justice Department's investigative steps. Next, the Justice Department sidelined career prosecutors and installed loyalists who are willing to pursue this baseless investigation. Earlier this month, MAGA loyalist Joe DiGeneva was sworn in as counsel to the Attorney General to help lead the quote " grand conspiracy" close quote investigation. Mister DeGeneva was appointed after the senior career prosecutor in charge of the investigation was abruptly removed. Mister DeGeneva previously claimed the Russian investigation was a plot to frame President Trump. Mister DeGeneva was also part of the legal team, led by Rudy Giuliani, that aimed to overturn the results of the twenty twenty election. Last week, Acting Attorney General Blanch met with Mister DeGeneva in South Florida, to discuss the case and post it on social media, quote, " Welcome to the fight,

Mm-hmm.

Joe." This administration's lawless conduct makes clear that it's never been more important for judges who are dedicated and committed to the law without fear or favor. Will these nominees be independent in their thinking or ru- a rubber stamp? Will they defend the rule of law? There'll be questions that would be asked to get to the bottom of those questions. I yield the floor.

We'll now turn to the introductions of the nominees. We have introductions by Senator Husted, followed by uh colleagues on the committee. Because of scheduling conflicts, Senator Moreno asked me to uh enter his opening introduction for Mr. Hendershot into the record, which we will do now without objection. Senator Cruz asked me to do the same for his opening introductions for Mr. Jones and Mr. Mark, and I likewise. do that without objection. So, uh, Senator Husted, thank you for taking the time to join us here today. You may may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my honor to introduce fellow Ohioan, Mr. Michael Hendershot for his nomination to be US District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio. Miss, uh, Mr. Hendershot earned degrees from Ohio Wesleyan University and the University of Virginia where he received his JD before building a distinguished legal career in both the public uh in both public service and private practice. He now serves as the Chief Deputy Solicitor General in the office of the Ohio Attorney General where he has defended Ohio's laws in significant cases and has mentored future attorneys as a law professor at The Ohio State University. Throughout my time working in public service in Ohio, I've had the pleasure of working with men m- with uh Michael Hendershot. He has built a hard-earned and well-deserved reputation as a brilliant legal thinker, writer, and oral advocate. He is respected and admired by his clients, the courts in which he has argued cases, and even opposing counsel. both when I served as Ohio Secretary of State. Uh, my mission when when I served as Ohio M- Secretary of State, my mission was to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat, a goal I've continued uh during my time here in the Senate. And during that time as Ohio's Chief Elections Officer, Michael Hendershot was an invaluable partner in our fight to for a common sense election security policies. He argued several cases defending Ohio's election laws ensuring that it lived up to the standard of making it indeed easy to vote and hard to cheat he was on the front lines of this battle during pivotal moments defending ohio's voter roll maintenance policies when they were challenged all the way up to the us supreme court in huested versus philippe randolph institute, a case that set a national standard uh after ohio won it in the Supreme Court. Uh, I would like to thank Michael Hendershot for his years of public service to the people of Ohio and for being a great partner in our endeavors to make our elections secure. I am certain, I am certain indeed that Michael Hendershot will once again serve the people of Ohio with honor and distinction in his new role as US District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, should my colleagues confirm him, a confirmation I strongly support. Uh, Mister Hendershot, thank you for being here.

Thank you, Senator Husted. Uh, now we'll turn to our colleague on the uh committee. Senator Moody for her introduction.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Uh, it is great to be here uh this afternoon to all the nominees that are here. Let me s start by thanking you and your families for appearing before this committee, for offering yourselves up for service. It's not just the person that enters service, it is the families that surround them and support them, and often take the criticism that comes along with that. So we thank you for being willing to serve your country. Uh, I wanna underscore that nomination by the President of the United States to receive a lifetime appointment to the federal bench is more than just an honor. I can only imagine how hard you all worked from law school on to get to this point in your careers. Uh and I can only imagine the pride your loved ones are feeling right now and what they felt when they learned you would be here s sitting today uh to be voted out of committee and then voted on by the Senate as a nominee of the President of the United States. Certainly an honor our country is going to be better off for your service. Uh and it's a high bar. Uh the federal bench is certainly one that many work their entire lives. uh to become a part of. It is a great honor. And with that position will come intense uh responsibility and integrity uh to maintain the highest standard of care in that position and um understand that along that will come scrutiny because the people have to have a place where they can go and take grievances and conflicts and discord and know that it will be heard by an independent, fair, impartial Jurist. And that is a heavy responsibility, especially in this day and age, and one that we ask you to take on. Um, so know that we are all grateful for that, and I am especially proud to see a brave Floridian with us today that has been nominated Chief Judge of the Florida's fourth District Court of Appeal, Jeffrey Koontz. Chief Judge Koontz is an experienced lawyer and jurist who has built a reputation for excellence, integrity, and deep respect for the rule of law. He received his BA from Boston College in two thousand and three, is J. D. from Suffolk University Law School in two thousand and six. After law school, he entered private practice where he focused on federal um appellate litigation and during that time he briefed and argued cases in Florida appellate courts multiple federal circuit courts, and even the United States Supreme Court. In two thousand and sixteen my colleague, the senior senator from the state of Florida with less hair, uh Senator Scott, appointed uh Judge Kuntz to serve on Florida's fourth district court of appeal, and at that time I will note that Judge Kuntz was the youngest person ever appointed to the position. And as someone who was the youngest judge in Florida at the time I became a judge, I understand the work ethic and the commitment that is required to not only meet expectations but exceed those expectations. And I think you did just that, sir, recognized by your colleagues later for your leadership and commitment to the court by your election to serve as Chief Judge, uh in Florida's fourth district court of appeal, a role in which you still serve today. That is quite an honor to be elected by your colleagues. Chief Judge's Coon Chief Judge Coontz's experience both as an advocate and judge has prepared him well for service on the federal bench. I am so proud as Florida's newest United States Senator to introduce him today as a nominee to serve as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida. Congratulations, sir, to you and your family. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Moody. I'm honored to uh introduce Mister Arthur Rob Jones and Mister John Mark, President Trump's nominees to serve as US District Judges for the Southern District of Texas. The lone star state is proud to have produced some of the finest attorneys and judges in the nation, so I'm glad to be able to sing the praises of two more of these public servants. Rob Jones received his BA from Indiana Ver- University and his JD from Georgetown. He served his country and was active duty in the US Air Force until two thousand and two when he transitioned to the US Air Force Reserves. During this time he served as a circuit trial counsel from two thousand two to two thousand four and from two thousand four to two thousand twenty-three as a assistant staff judge advocate at joint ba- joint base San Antonio Lackland, and he retired at the rank of lieutenant colonel. He served as an assistant US attorney in the southern district of Texas, beginning in two thousand two, first in the Laredo division and later in the Houston division. In two thousand twenty one, he was promoted to deputy criminal chief, and in twenty twenty four he was promoted to his current role as executive assistant US attorney. Not to be outdone, John Mark, another one of Texas's fine judges, received his BA from Brooklyn College, part of the uh City University of New York, and his JD from St. John's University School of Law. He served as a prosecutor in New York City, first as a Special Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn and later as an Assistant District Attorney in the Bronx. In two thousand twenty-one, he experienced what I would imagine was quite a culture change and became an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Texas. And in twenty twenty-four, he joined the National Security and Public Corruption section and was later promoted to Associate Deputy Criminal Chief. Mark served as a first Assistant US Attorney and twenty twenty five, overseeing the civil criminal, civil and appellate divisions. And since March twenty twenty six, he has served as the acting US attorney for the Southern District of Texas. With such fine credentials, it's no surprise that President Trump has selected both of these men to serve as US District Judges. And I'm honored to say a few words in support of their nominations here today. So to both of you, Rob and John, uh Congratulations on your nominations. I look forward to supporting both of you here in the committee and on the Senate floor. Let me ask all of the nominees please to step forward and um I'll administer the oath, so don't sit down yet. If you raise your right hand. You swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

I do.

Thank you. Each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative. And as usually happens, the Senate schedules multiple things to occur at exactly the same time. Um, so there's a vote going on. The chairman is voting now. And and I and others will be um peeling off periodically to go do the same and attend to other business. But um It's our normal process if you desire to um introduce people that are here with you, including your family, and then uh for you to give an opening statement. So we'll start on the left um with Mister Hendershot and then move down the line. So Mister Hendershot, the uh floor is yours.

Thank you. Uh, Chair Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, Acting Chair Cornyn. I just wanna spend a few moments thanking those uh that are the reason that I'm in this chair. And although I can only just hit the tip of the iceberg in the time that's here, because really there are hundreds of people that should be thanked for me sitting here today. That begins of course with the President. Thank you, President Trump, for this nomination. It is truly the honor of a lifetime. And thank you for the confidence the nomination shows and the kind of judge, I would be if fortunate enough to be confirmed. Thank you to Senators Moreno and Husted for their support, and Senator Husted for his remarks this morning. A couple of personal thanks. My parents, Jack and Candy, could not be here today. A pre-planned cataract surgery got in the way of that, but they're with my brother Andy back in my hometown of Findlay, Ohio, uh watching on television. There's a lot I could say to my parents, but I'll just say it with this illustration. Uh when I was born with a birth defect and the doctors handed me over to my parents, uh the doctors told them to expect learning disabilities, speech disabilities, uh but they didn't accept that, and their fight for me is made all the difference as to why I'm sitting here today. Other personal thanks in the room with me today, my wife Abby, my three kids, my mother-in-law Gwen, a special shout out to Gwen who's with my daughter who has special needs. I'm not sure that her uh attention span is up to the task of the entirety of this hearing. Uh also to my wife Abby, I wanna say you're the best partner one could hope for. All the many challenges that life has thrown at you and at us, you've been tougher than all of them. I'm incredibly proud to be your husband. Some professional thanks to Judge Jerry Smith, who hired me to be his law clerk as my first job out of law school. I learned from him what it looks like to have passion for the rule of law every day, something he continues to do at age eighty there on the fifth circuit. Uh, to Justice Terence O'Donnell, who hired me to be a law clerk in Ohio when I returned to practice in that state. It was probably a low ebb of my life. I had just lost my first wife to an unexpected death. I wasn't sure I was still going to practice law, but he saw fit to invest in me in his responsible of course for me being here today. And finally, to Governor DeWine and Attorney General Yost, who hired me into and continued to spark the flame of serving uh the public in a in a public role. They've both been excellent public servants for the state of Ohio. I hope to carry on their tradition and continue to serve the people of Ohio in a somewhat different capacity. Thank you to the committee. I'll pass the baton to my left and I look forward to the questions and our discussion.

Mr. Jones.

Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Good afternoon, Chairman Grassley. I'm Cornyn. Good afternoon, Chairman Grassley. Was I? No?

I think that could be pretty temperamental. Well, well, we won't blame you, Senator Booker, okay?

Well, well, we won't blame you, Senator Booker. Okay. Yeah, exactly.

No.

Thank you, Senator. Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of the committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today about my nomination. I would first like to thank President Trump for nominating me to this very important position. I'm extremely grateful for and humbled by the faith he has placed in me to serve as a District Judge in the Southern District of Texas. This nomination is the greatest honor of my life. I would also like to thank both Senator Cornyn, uh, for his generous introduction, and Senator Cruz, who I believe, uh, contributed to it as well. And I am also grateful to both of them for recommending the President nominate me to the federal bench. Nobody ever gets to this point in their life and career on his or her own, and I am no exception. I would like to thank all of my family and friends for their love and support throughout my life and legal career. I could not have gotten here without them. I would specifically like to thank my wife, Hande, who has traveled here today for all her love, dedication and devotion over the last twenty-five plus years. I am also grateful to my mother, Penny Jones, my father, David Jones, and my sister, Cici Schrock and her family for everything they have done to make me who I am today. My mother has unfortunately had some recent health troubles and is unable to attend this hearing, but I'm sure she is proudly watching at home in Wisconsin with my father and sister. I would also like to thank my friends who traveled to this hearing as well as those supporting me back home in Texas. As you know, my entire legal career has been in public service. It has been a calling for me and remains so. I look forward to answering the questions you may have for me, and my hope is that after I do so, you will vote to confirm me, and I can continue to serve the people of the United States and the Southern District of Texas as a district judge.

Mister Koontz.

Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and Acting Chair Cornyn. I would like to thank President Trump for entrusting me with the privilege of being nominated to the Southern District of Florida, a district where I spent much of my career as an attorney. I would also like to thank my two home state senators, Senator Moody and Senator Scott. I appreciate their support for this position, Senator Moody's introduction, and I also especially appreciate the trust Senator Scott plays in me. ten years ago when he appointed me as the youngest Intermediate Appellate Judge in Florida's history. I would not be here where I am without my family. First, my beautiful wife, Christine, who supports me every day and helps raise our two boys who are both here today. I would not be sitting here without her support, and we could not be more proud of the young men our children are becoming. Next, my parents, who are also here and who raised me to be the person I am today. Additionally, my in-laws, sisters, sister-in-law, brothers-in-law, nieces, nephews, many of whom are here today and some are home and watching remotely. I'm fortunate that I have friends and attorneys from every step of my career and life here to support me and others also watching from their home. Finally, I want to thank my colleagues in the fourth district court of appeal for their support the last nearly ten years I have been privileged to serve the citizens supported with them thank you all very much and I look forward to your questions.

Mister Mark.

Thank you. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today. From the start, I wish to thank President Trump. This nomination is one of the greatest honors of my life, and I am deeply grateful for his trust and confidence in me. I also want to extend my sincere thanks to Senators Cornyn and Cruz. Their support throughout this process has meant more than I can express. There are people with me today without whom I would not be sitting in this room. My wife, Brittany, My partner of more than a decade has been standing beside me through long hours, hard cases, and every sacrifice that comes with a life in public service. I owe her everything. To my mother and the rest of my family and friends who made the trip to DC to be here today, thank you. I could not have gotten here without each one of you. And finally, to my father, who just passed away eight weeks ago. He didn't make it to this day, but I know with certainty he is here with us. Thank you all again, and I welcome the committee's questions.

I noticed, Mister Mark, uh, you had one dissenting point of view of a who was r removed from the room. Was that by your mother?

Uh, I beli no, that was by my my aunt, sir.

OK.

Uh, he may be back shortly, sir.

OK. Well, we're glad that all of you could bring your f friends and family members with you to enjoy this uh day uh this is a extraordinary honor that's uh being bestowed on all of you and I will tell you that Um, there's a lesson that I learned early in my Senate career, and that's when there's not a lot of people on the dais, on this side of the dais, that's good news. Um, that means, uh, it's not particularly whatever the subject matters is not particularly controversial. Um, but, uh, so I wish you wish you all the best. I really, um, Senator Graskin will be back here shortly after voting and then I'll I'll go do the same. But let me just ask, uh, Mr. Hindershot and Mr. Jones, Mr. Kuntz, Mr. Mark. Justice Scalia talked about the importance of an independent judiciary and something that made the United States unique, pointing out that many countries, including the former Soviet Union, had a parchment uh constitution, but when it came to actually uh implementing the uh highfalutin rhetoric in that constitution, Uh, they failed the test because they did not have an independent judiciary. In this fraught political environment, uh, we need an independent judiciary, people who are going to call balls and strikes without regard to who wins and who loses, and will faithfully enforce the law as written. Uh, Mister Hendershott, can you uh can you offer some of your thoughts about the importance of an independent judiciary? After all, um, you're gonna have life tenure. So that you don't have to run for election, you don't have to raise any money, you don't even even have to make anybody happy. But uh, your thoughts about the uh role of the independent judiciary.

Thank you, Senator, for the the chance to address that. I would say first, I had the privilege of working for two judges, one as a Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court in my career, and so I got to witness firsthand in each of those two years what it looks like to approach the law with humility, to approach the law with respect, I think both of those are important ingredients in treating the judiciary as an independent branch under article three. But what I would say also is in terms of acting as independent judiciary, I think that requires judicial courage. And one thing I would point to is the last fifteen years of my career, I've been defending whatever the policies of Ohio may be, from the legislature, the governor, the universities, and so forth. That does not always make me popular, whether it's as you heard Senator Husted's remarks about voting integrity laws, or laws about capital punishment. So those have cost me, you know, social and professional relationships by defending those things. Uh, but that kind of courage I commit to bringing to the bench, because that I think is an important aspect of judging, as your remarks indicate, Senator.

Mr. Jones?

Uh, Senator, uh I echo a lot of the remarks of the nominee to my right, and I also believe that uh the independence of the judiciary is vital to our country, and I would be um I would look at any case where I lucky enough to be confirmed um solely on the facts and the law and I would follow those. Um and I would not have any regard for anything other than that in my courtroom. And in my career, a long career as a prosecutor, um, I often had to make some difficult decisions, um, regarding facts, uh, that would come in on whether to prosecute someone, not prosecute someone. And sometimes those decisions were not always popular, but I always tried to do the right thing, what I thought was right, based on the facts and the law. And, uh, I believe I would do the exact same thing, uh, as a judge were I lucky enough to be confirmed.

Judge Koontz.

Thank you, Senator, and to much of what Mr. Jones said. As a judge for the last ten years, I have been uh privileged to see what the importance of an independent judiciary. I have judged each case without regard for any of the parties, who who they were or what the public might think. I've followed the law on each case.

And Mr. Martin.

Thank you, Senator. I I echo the sentiments of my my co-nominees. Uh, being a career prosecutor, I've had an opportunity to be

Thank you. Mister Chairman,

Thank you.

I'm gonna turn the turn the gavel back over to you.

Mm, good.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Mister Jones, I see that you joined the organization Gun Owners of America in twenty twenty five. Is that correct?

Yes, Senator, that's correct.

My staff has learned that Gun Owners of America has criticized the National Rifle Association as being too moderate. Proudly claiming that it's quote " the only no compromise gun lobby". And has taken extreme positions on firearm safety. For example, the group you joined is called for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive Explosives to be abolished. And his former executive director claimed that, quote, all gun laws are unconstitutional. Why did you join Gun Owners of America?

Uh, mister ranking member Durbin, uh, I simply joined that organization. Again, I'm a I'm a very Um, I'm nothing other than an a low level, the lowest level of membership. Um, I'm a long-time firearms owner. Um, it was nothing more than, uh, I saw them as a general advocacy group. Uh, I can assure the court. However, I'm, I'm aware that the ocas or the, um, uh, I can assure the, uh, committee, however, that, uh, while I am aware that they often engage or occasionally engage in litigation on matters, if I were so lucky to be confirmed, Uh, I would resign my membership in that organization because, uh, uh, I don't belie- I believe I would be required to do so under the

Do you share the Gun Owners of America view that the

the s-

second amendment renders all gun laws unconstitutional?

Senator, respectfully, um, I think if I were to answer that question, it could involve both a political question and something that could come before the

But here's where we start, Mr. Jones. You voluntarily joined this organization with radical views. And now that is part of your biography before this committee. If you want to make it clear that you now have changed your views or explain why you joined the organization here's your chance. But to duck it and say I don't have to comment on this, is to leave us with the conclusion you agree with them.

Senator Durbin, I I don't believe I'm ducking it. I don't believe first of all it's with the characterization of it being radical, But I would say that I don't believe as a nominee with somebody, uh, if I were to be confirmed, cases that could come before me on the bench could involve issues involving the second amendment. I don't believe it would be appropriate for me in this hearing to comment on,

That's right.

uh, my view of the second amendment and what I believe it entails on those types of issues. I think that would be inappropriate as a judicial nominee.

So you say that their position that all gun laws are unconstitutional is not radical.

And again, Senator, I would say I I it is it would be improper for me to opine on something like that, since matters could come before me. But I would say that for most organizations, if just because someone joins one doesn't mean they necessarily agree with everything that someone in the organization may say later on or at some point.

Mister Hindershot, if you're confirmed to the district court and issue a decision, would you Would the parties before you be required to comply with your decisions and any orders you and the district court may issue?

Senator, that would be my expectation, short of things such as a stay or an appeal, of course, that could put those sorts of things on ice. That would be my expectation from

But once that process has been exhausted. Appeals or whatever. Do you expect the parties to follow the orders of the court?

I would expect that, Senator.

I ask because between twenty twenty one and twenty twenty three, you defended Ohio's state legislative and congressional maps in court. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled five times that the state legislative maps violated the state constitution. It also struck down the state's congressional maps twice. If you are confirmed to the district court, will you condone or permit the kind of repeated resistance to court orders that the Ohio D- Redistricting Commission engaged in?

Well, Senator, I as my colleague mentioned, I think the judicial canons certainly apply to us here as nominees, and I think to to engage with a hypothetical about, for example, you know, a map or something like that would be inside the space that the canons fence off. So I'm happy to talk about my role in the

So you you believe it's arguable as to whether or not a party is bound by a court order?

No, Senator, I don't think that's what I'm saying. What I'm saying is my understanding of the canons the way I take them to bind me here is to not prejudge a case by other than talking about issues at a high level of generality. Otherwise, it is to prejudge a case that may come be pending or impending before we study.

This is just the opposite. You weren't prejudging. You were representing a client who was resisting a court order. And it says the Supreme Court of your state ruled five times that the maps violated the state constitution and had to rule the state's congressional maps twice.

Well, I have to take away all the

It it seemed to me that as a judge you would expect a lawful order to be followed. Is that correct?

Yes, and I do expect lawful orders to be followed. If you well, I I'm distinguishing between the hypothetical that I took you to be asking about and my role representing certain members of the Ohio Redistricting Commission. Uh, I will note that there was Uh, seven members of that separately represented, as that litigation went on, there was even further separation of the representation, uh, and including of that I ended up not representing the members for the entire time of the litigation you described.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Senator Kennedy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hendershot. Wh when does when does the president have to uh to uh get permission of the United States Congress to to use military force.

Well, Senator Kennedy, uh a as I was discussing uh with Ranking Member Durbin, I do want to be careful about hypotheticals in terms of of prejudging anything,

It's not a hypothetical,

but

that's I'm asking what the Constitution says. When uh w- when does the President of the United States have to get permission from Congress to use military force?

Would Generally, uh, Senator, my understanding is the division between Article One and Article Two distinguish between you know the war powers which are under Article One and require uh congressional consent again it's talking in in great generalities whereas other use of force if I understand your question are things that would are likely committed under Article Two to the President's commander-in-chief powers.

I have no idea what you just said, Mr. Hendershot. Let's try it again. Tell me when the president has to go to Congress to get permission to use military force.

Uh uh Senator, I think is is when uh because the text of the Constitution article one talks about declarations of war, those would be circumstances where the president would in a general sense, and uh use of force that is not war under the commander-in-chief power, I think those are under article two without the consultation of Congress.

Okay. I I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. I just don't understand what you said. Um. Mister Jones. Um. Let us suppose uh the mayor of a city uh Well, strike that, let's suppose the mayor of a city goes to his or her uh uh city council and gets a rule. Freezing rents. You with me?

Yes, sir.

Freezing all rents.

Yes, sir.

Forever and a day. Um. Well, n- let's make it even more interesting. Reducing rents by twenty percent, because housing is a problem, right? Cost of housing. But suppose to - to - to try to, uh, uh, help people with housing costs, the - the - the city, mayor and council, uses its police power under its state constitution, as recognized by the federal constitution. So we're gonna lower our rents by twenty percent. And as a result, because of the cost of insurance in in electric electricity and that sort of thing, uh about half of uh the landlords in the city just saying, look, you know, we're gonna have to default on our mortgage. Can the c- per uh constitutionally can the city do that?

Well, Senator, I I think it could Penned, I do think the city could have some ability to freeze rents. Um, but I think you would have to look at the the overall

Why why isn't that a taking?

Well, it it certainly could be a taking. And I think

W when does it become a taking? At what point?

Well, I I think it would have to be you'd have to initially look at the the impact, the financial impact on the taking of what could amount to a proper

Okay. I'm I suppose that's fair, yes sir. Let's let's suppose forty percent of the landlords uh will default on their mortgage. Is that - have you reached the point of a taking or not? And how do you determine when sh- when you reach the point of a taking?

Well, I - again, I think it could depend, but there would have to be a showing that, you know, what the - the financial impact was, and I think that you could -

Yes, sir, I - I - I - I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude. We just have so little time. I understand that you have to have a showing. Tell me what the rule is.

Well, I think the rule is if you're taking property without the the government, I should say, taking property uh for a legitimate government purpose, I think you can only do that by compensating the owner of the property.

So any any freeze on on on rent is a

Generally.

is a act of eminent domain? Is that what you're saying?

Well, not not necessarily, Senator. I think in your hypothetical you were you were, at least as I understood it, were talking about a financial impact, not just freezing it at the moment, but then going on down the road with you.

Okay. And the hypothetical I gave you. Who's gonna win if the landlords see the city, the city or the landlords?