During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, lawyers for President Trump, including nominees Harmeet K. Dhillon, D. John Sauer, and Aaron Reitz, faced scrutiny over whether the administration could ignore court orders, in light of Trump’s push for expansive presidential powers. Reitz noted that public officials may not always be bound by court decisions, prompting concerns from Democrats about the potential disregard for judicial rulings. Senator Richard Durbin criticized this stance, emphasizing the importance of adhering to court orders. Despite the pressures, the nominees insisted they didn’t anticipate unethical demands from the president, with Dhillon highlighting her focus on civil rights issues.
Attorneys representing President Trump who are poised to assume prominent positions within the Justice Department clashed with Democrats on Wednesday over the administration’s potential to disregard certain court rulings—marking an initial confrontation in a broader struggle over the executive branch’s push for enhanced presidential authority.
The discussion took place before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where three nominees participated in a confirmation hearing aimed at elevating them within the Justice Department. Harmeet K. Dhillon and D. John Sauer, two of the nominees, are longstanding personal attorneys for Mr. Trump.
The third nominee, Aaron Reitz, nominated to head the Office of Legal Policy, faced inquiries regarding a past social media comment where he encouraged Mr. Trump to emulate President Andrew Jackson, who defied a Supreme Court order in 1832.
“There is no definitive guideline on whether a public official is always bound by a court ruling,” he stated on Wednesday. “In some cases, the official may be legally obligated, while in others, they might not be.”
Mr. Sauer, who has represented Mr. Trump at the Supreme Court and is the nominee for solicitor general, was questioned about the same issue. He responded, “It’s difficult to make a broad, sweeping statement about something without having the facts and the law presented.”
This exchange occurred amid numerous legal challenges against the Trump administration on various matters, many connected to the president’s attempts to dismiss thousands of federal workers while he seeks to reform the government. Democrats have voiced concerns that Mr. Trump might simply disregard unfavorable rulings.
Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the senior Democrat on the committee, labeled Mr. Reitz’s response as “an astounding statement from someone aspiring to join the Department of Justice.”
Some conservative legal analysts have long argued that the federal court system should not permit trial court judges in individual districts to issue nationwide injunctions that limit governmental actions. Concurrently, conservative activists often pursue such injunctions to end or restrict practices by Democratic administrations that they oppose.
In the current discourse, however, Democrats have expressed worries that the Trump administration might choose to disregard not only lower court rulings but also appellate and Supreme Court decisions. These concerns intensified following Mr. Trump’s recent social media post stating that “he who saves his country does not violate any law.”
Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, asserted that certain Supreme Court rulings were incorrect and should have been more vigorously contested by government officials.
Another Republican, however, intervened to blunt the conversation with a straightforward warning.
“Never, under any circumstances, take the position that you will disregard a federal court order. Never,” stated Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana. “You can disagree with it, within the limits of legal ethics, criticize it, appeal it, or resign.”
Responding to multiple inquiries regarding how they would address inappropriate requests from the president, the attorneys maintained that they did not anticipate such scenarios occurring.
“The president has never asked me to do anything I found to be objectionable, immoral, unlawful, or illegal,” remarked Ms. Dhillon, who, if confirmed, would lead the civil rights division. A longtime supporter of Mr. Trump, Ms. Dhillon is notably recognized for her efforts to contest the 2020 election outcomes. Should she receive confirmation, she would manage a division that frequently addresses voting rights issues.