-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, today I rise to speak in opposition to the nomination of Nancy Abudu to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Ms. Abudu may well be the most radical judicial nominee nominated to date by President Biden.

I have had concerns with Ms. Abudu's radical views and her apparent lack of respect for the rules of the court ever since her nomination. During her confirmation hearing, I asked her about allegations of potential judge shopping raised by Judge Burke of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in a series of cases brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a result of troubling attorney conduct.

In this series of cases, the three Federal district courts in Alabama took the extraordinary and joint measure of convening to hear concerns raised by Judge Burke that Ms. Abudu's litigation team and their cocouncil brazenly abused the judicial process.

Ms. Abudu is, to be clear, the Director of Strategic Litigation for the Southern Poverty Law Center. And strategic litigation is what they do. That is what they are about. She is the director of this division.

When I asked her about her strategic litigation decisions in this series of cases, she stated:

As Director of Strategic Litigation, my responsibility is to oversee and provide general management for our cases, but it is the subject matter experts in the litigation team that handle the day-to-day, including the filing of complaints, the briefing, and any oral arguments.

In response to my questioning, she refused to be forthright. She didn't deny her oversight of these cases. She simply refused to admit that she was responsible for the strategic decisions the three Alabama Federal district courts found so troubling.

Her lack of candor and her apparent disregard for the protections built into our legal system disqualify her for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

As I asked her about these--about these cases--pointing out only that the day-to-day litigation management was handled by other attorneys-- which was obvious--she was openly, directly avoiding a direct line of inquiry, a line of inquiry that was very relevant to her nomination, to her confirmation process.

But, unfortunately, my concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination do not end--and they didn't begin--with this troubling series of cases that I just described. You see, the attorneys general in every single State of the Eleventh Circuit--who are joined, by the way, by the attorneys general in a number of other States--but every single attorney general serving within the Eleventh Circuit is part of this letter articulating concerns and confirming that there are grave dangers in confirming Ms. Abudu to the Eleventh Circuit.

These attorneys general, along with attorneys general from 15 additional States, including my home State of Utah, recently sent a letter to the leadership of this body expressing their numerous concerns with Ms. Abudu's nomination.

The attorneys general of the people who would be subject to coming before Ms. Abudu in Federal cases are justifiably worried about her potential confirmation today. These are people who really need to be able to have the confidence that when appearing before Judge Abudu, she will not only respect the law, but that she will handle their cases without any preconceived biases--biases that could lead her off course as she administers justice in her courtroom. If anyone has preconceived notions, biases regarding how justice ought to be administered such that litigants could come to the conclusion that they won't get a fair shake in front of that judge--not to mention the preconceived prejudices against the good people living in the Eleventh Circuit--Ms. Abudu has certainly demonstrated that she does.

Ms. Abudu is a longtime and current member and past leader of an entity called the National Lawyers Guild. This group identifies itself as consisting of a radical movement of legal activists--their words, not mine. After violent protests against Atlanta police officers, the National Lawyers Guild declared that ``policing is the true threat to our collective safety.''

Imagine that. It is not crime, it is not other problems that police deal with; it is the police themselves policing--the act of policing.

They didn't say specific police officers who may, unlike most officers, not be doing their jobs right. They said policing--policing itself--is the true threat to our collective safety.

Imagine that.

I agree with these attorneys general that Ms. Abudu's longstanding and ongoing association with this radical anti-police group is, alone, grounds for refusing, rejecting her nomination.

I find it very troubling indeed that those who would be subject to having to come before Ms. Abudu find her track record dishonest and divisive. Let me quote from the letter outlining their concerns:

We are familiar with Ms. Abudu's work and her willingness to demonize those with whom she disagrees, and we know well the importance of the seat on the Eleventh Circuit that she would fill. Ms. Abudu has proven herself unfit for that role. She has compared her fellow Americans to Jim-Crow-era racists. She has aligned herself with self-proclaimed ``radical movement legal activists'' who view ``policing'' as ``the true threat to our collective safety.''

And the quote continues:

And she has proclaimed that our criminal justice system is ``practically the same system as during slavery.'' These spurious and outrageous statements vividly demonstrate that she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness, and integrity required of a Federal judge.

Now, to be clear, Ms. Abudu chose to associate herself with the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is itself well known for leveling unfounded charges of ``hate'' against any person or any group with which that organization happens to disagree.

She became a leader in that organization and fully embraced its deplorable tactics, which are not intended to foster debate and understanding but rather to silence opposition.

They are well known for publishing things. Their hate list has brought about hate. It led to a shooting in Washington, DC, of an entity here. Someone got shot after believing that the Southern Poverty Law Center had indicated that that was the appropriate action.

She has made offensive and baseless assertions against the people in the Eleventh Circuit. Now I want to quote some more from the Attorneys General letter:

Since becoming a leader [of the Southern Poverty Law Center], Ms. Abudu has engaged in [the] deplorable tactics [beloved by that organization] by disparaging those in her way, including each of the three States within the jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For example, she and her team submitted a ``Report'' to Congress about Alabama's supposed ``unyielding record of racial discrimination in voting.'' The Alabama Attorney General's Office set the record straight in a follow-up report that went claim-by-claim, documenting the SPLC's many misrepresentations.

The quote continues:

Each misrepresentation served the overarching theme of Ms. Abudu's report--that any disagreement over policy is proof that her political opponents are evil. Indeed, according to Ms. Abudu, things in Alabama are the same or worse today than they were in 1965. As she tells it, Alabama's goal--today--is to--

Now, these are her words--

``establish white supremacy in this State.''

The letter continues:

While some might see room for good faith debate, for example, about the merits of Alabama's voter identification law, (which was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit)--

The Court on which she has been nominated to serve--

Ms. Abudu sees only a ``relentless commitment to finding new ways to keep . . . Alabamians from making their voices heard,'' all . . . part of a desperate attempt ``to perpetuate majority white control.''

Her words, not mine.

The letter concludes:

These assertions are as offensive as they are baseless, and they are disqualifying for an aspiring Federal judge.

To quote one more time from the letter, another part of the letter says:

Though Ms. Abudu is surely aware of [the] facts, she prefers to use her powerful position at [the Southern Poverty Law Center] to sow division and erode trust among Americans-- declaring that ``Jim Crow is still alive and well [in the South].'' But as the Supreme Court has recognized (and as any fair-minded person knows): ``Things have changed in the South.'' Ms. Abudu's contrary contention doesn't show simple professional disagreement. It shows, at best, insuperable bias. It more likely shows dishonesty. And it certainly shows unfitness for judicial office.

Hon. Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell: On behalf of the State of Alabama and other concerned States, we write to warn you of the dishonest and divisive track record of Nancy Abudu, who President Biden has nominated to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. We are familiar with Ms. Abudu's work and her willingness to demonize those with whom she disagrees, and we know well the importance of the seat on the Eleventh Circuit that she would fill. Ms. Abudu has proven herself unfit for that role. She has compared her fellow Americans to Jim-Crow-era racists. She has aligned herself with self- proclaimed ``radical movement legal activists'' who view ``policing'' as ``the true threat to our collective safety.'' And she has proclaimed that our criminal justice system is ``practically the same system as during slavery.'' These spurious and outrageous statements vividly demonstrate that she lacks the judgment, fair-mindedness, and integrity required of a federal judge. Her nomination should be rejected.

As you know, Ms. Abudu has been the Director of Strategic Litigation for the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center since 2019. The SPLC is infamous for leveling unfounded charges of ``hate'' against political opponents.

Since becoming a leader in that organization, Ms. Abudu has engaged in those same deplorable tactics by disparaging those in her way, including each of the three States within the jurisdiction of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For example, she and her team submitted a ``Report'' to Congress about Alabama's supposed ``unyielding record of racial discrimination in voting.'' The Alabama Attorney General's Office set the record straight in a follow-up report that went claim-by-claim, documenting the SPLC's many misrepresentations. Each misrepresentation served the overarching theme of Ms. Abudu's report--that any disagreement over policy is proof that her political opponents are evil. Indeed, according to Ms. Abudu, things in Alabama are the same or worse today than they were in 1965. As she tells it, Alabama's goal--today--is to ``establish white supremacy in this State.'' While some might see room for good faith debate, for example, about the merits of Alabama's voter identification law (which was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit), Ms. Abudu sees only a ``relentless commitment to finding new ways to keep Black Alabamians from making their voices heard,'' all as part of a desperate attempt ``to perpetuate majority white control.''

These assertions are as offensive as they are baseless, and they are disqualifying for an aspiring federal judge. For decades, black and white voter registration and turnout in Alabama has been at or near parity. In 2018, Alabama had the second highest black voter registration rate in the entire country.'' Though Ms. Abudu is surely aware of these facts, she prefers to use her powerful position at SPLC to sow division and erode trust among Americans--declaring that ``Jim Crow is still alive and well.'' But as the Supreme Court has recognized (and as any fair-minded person knows): ``Things have changed in the South.'' Ms. Abudu's contrary contention doesn't show simple professional disagreement. It shows, at best, insuperable bias. It more likely shows dishonesty. And it certainly shows unfitness for judicial office.

Ms. Abudu has a similar track record of misstatements when it comes to Florida. She baselessly accused Governor DeSantis of ``digging in his heels to ensure poor people in his state are blocked from voting'' and suggested that Florida is engaged in a ``war to strip poor and low-income people of all political power.''

She has also demonstrated marked hostility to the State of Georgia and especially its law enforcement officers. Without evidence, she has asserted that Georgia has a ``culture of law enforcement that still targets Black and Brown people.'' She has derided the entire State, claiming that ``Georgia continues to be a bad actor,'' and that the state legislature ``is committed to keeping us in the past and that is scary.'' How could Ms. Abudu impartially adjudicate the many Eleventh Circuit cases involving Georgia, its statutes, its citizens, and especially its law enforcement officers, when she already believes that the State is a ``bad actor'' with a ``culture of law enforcement'' that ``targets Black and Brown people''?

It's also important to recognize that Ms. Abudu attempted to leverage misrepresentations and invective to affect this Chamber's vote on legislation. She derided the supposed ``anti-voter legislatures . . . in the Deep South'' as justification for a federal overhaul of State elections. She even insisted on ``abolishing the filibuster'' to accomplish her goal, referring to it as ``a legislative tool popular with pro-Jim Crow senators of the past.'' Fortunately, the Senate saw through this divisive narrative. But if the Senate confirms Ms. Abudu to a seat on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she will be empowered to press her radical agenda from a position of power checked only by the occasional review of the United States Supreme Court. This Chamber must not reward her behavior with a lifetime appointment to a seat where she would decide appeals in important cases involving the very States she says are irredeemably trapped in 1965.

The SPLC's unethical conduct goes beyond Ms. Abudu's misrepresentations to this body. Several SPLC attorneys are currently being investigated by a three-judge federal district court for attempts to circumvent court rules by filing and then re-filing litigation against the State of Alabama. Ms. Abudu protests that she ``was not involved'' in the conduct under investigation but that's hard to square with her job directing the SPLC's strategic litigation, including her self-described role of ``the review and approval of litigation requests.'' Even if it's true that Ms. Abudu wasn't involved in the decision to try to circumvent federal court rules, this conduct occurred on her watch, which raises further questions about her judgment.

More recently, another SPLC attorney--presumably someone under Ms. Abudu's supervision in her role as Director of Strategic Litigation--was arrested and charged with domestic terrorism in relation to violent ``protests'' related to police facilities in Atlanta. The arrested attorney worked in the same office that Ms. Abudu lists as her work address. In response to the arrest, the SPLC tacitly approved its employee's alleged terrorism, choosing instead to put out a joint statement with the radical National Lawyers Guild criticizing the supposed ``heavy-handed law enforcement intervention against protesters.'' It's not clear whether Ms. Abudu was involved with that attorney or the SPLC's response to his arrest, but the SPLC's response shows the culture of its office and its attitude toward the rule of law and law enforcement.

Ms. Abudu's status as a current member and past leader of the National Lawyers Guild is similarly troubling. The NLG is a self-described group of ``radical movement legal activists.'' And in response to violent protests against the Atlanta police facilities mentioned above, NLG declared that ``policing is the true threat to our collective safety.'' Ms. Abudu's longstanding and ongoing association with this radical, anti-police group is yet another ground for rejecting her nomination.

It would be hard to overstate the importance of federal circuit courts of appeals. Nearly every federal appeal ends at the circuit court. Attorneys in our offices regularly practice before these courts, and we have great respect for these judges who dedicate their lives to the rule of law and to ensuring that all litigants before them are fairly heard.

Ms. Abudu's dishonest and divisive record shows that she would not be such a judge. She is an activist. She has repeatedly used misrepresentations and hateful rhetoric to advance her political goals. And she has thus shown herself unfit for this lifetime appointment. Because our judiciary needs jurists who will uphold the rule of law, not ``radical movement legal activists'' in robes, the Senate should reject Ms. Abudu's nomination. Sincerely,

Steve Marshall, Alabama Attorney General; Tim Griffin, Arkansas Attorney General; Chris Carr, Georgia Attorney General; Todd Rokita, Indiana Attorney General; Daniel Cameron, Kentucky Attorney General; Lynn Fitch, Mississippi Attorney General; Ashley Moody, Florida Attorney General; Raul Labrador, Idaho Attorney General; Brenna Bird, Attorney General of Iowa; Jeff Landry, Louisiana Attorney General; Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General; Mike Hilgers, Nebraska Attorney General; Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General; Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General; Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas; Alan Wilson, South Carolina Attorney General; Sean D. Reyes, Utah Attorney General; Patrick Morrisey, West Virginia Attorney General.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LEE. She has shown marked hostility toward Alabamians, Floridians, and Georgians. She has accused them of suppressing minorities and poor people from voting. She has accused their police officers of targeting minorities, and all throughout her accusations is the threat of racism. It animates her every action, her every assault, her every view.

She accuses Georgia of being ``committed to keeping us in the past and that is scary.''

As the Attorneys General appropriately ask, ``How could Ms. Abudu impartially adjudicate the many Eleventh Circuit cases involving Georgia, its statutes, its citizens, and especially its law enforcement officers, when she already believes the State is a `bad actor' with a `culture of law enforcement' that `targets Black and Brown people'?''

There again, they are quoting her words. Ms. Abudu's record of hostility toward the people and the laws of the Eleventh Circuit is nothing short of alarming. When you combine that hostility with her lack of respect for the judicial system and her ongoing commitment to a group of self-described ``radical movement legal activists,'' I simply don't know how any Member of this body can still believe she will serve the people of the Eleventh Circuit or, even less, our judicial system well.

But the only way one can justify voting for this nominee is if one agrees with her hostile views and is comfortable with her activist approach. I am not, and I oppose her nomination in the strongest possible terms.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source