Trump 9th U.S. Circuit nominee cries at hearing during questioning on attitude toward LGBTQ people

On October 30, 2019, Lawrence VanDyke, President Trump’s nominee for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, broke down in tears during his Senate confirmation hearing when questioned about allegations that he would not commit to being fair to LGBTQ litigants. The emotional moment came as Republican senators grilled the contents of an American Bar Association letter that rated VanDyke “not qualified” for the federal bench.

The ABA’s “Not Qualified” Rating

The ABA’s Federal Judiciary Committee had voted that VanDyke was “not qualified” for the 9th Circuit seat, citing concerns that he “lacks humility” and “does not have an open mind.” The committee’s letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee went further, stating that “Mr. VanDyke’s accomplishments are offset by the assessments of interviewees that Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice including procedural rules.”

The most explosive allegation in the letter was that VanDyke “would not say affirmatively that he would be fair to any litigant before him, notably members of the LGBTQ community.” That claim became the central flashpoint of the hearing.

VanDyke Breaks Down Under Questioning

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, who supported VanDyke’s nomination, walked the nominee through the ABA’s allegations point by point. When Hawley reached the claim about LGBTQ fairness and asked directly whether VanDyke had said he would not be fair to members of the LGBT community, VanDyke’s composure broke.

“Senator, that was the part of the letter…” VanDyke began, then trailed off as his voice cracked and tears began to flow. “I did not say that.” He paused, visibly struggling to regain his composure. “I apologize.”

“It’s alright,” Hawley told him.

After collecting himself, VanDyke continued: “No, I did not say that. I do not believe that. It is a fundamental belief, my belief, that all people are created in the image of God. They should all be treated with dignity and respect.”

Hawley pressed further, asking VanDyke directly whether he could commit to treating every litigant with respect and dignity if confirmed, including members of the LGBT community and “any other community that has been historically disadvantaged in this country.”

“Absolutely, Senator. I would not have allowed myself to be nominated for this position if I did not think I could do that,” VanDyke replied.

Republican Senators Attack the ABA Process

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, launched into a blistering attack on the ABA’s review process. He called the letter “a shameful exercise in political bias” and said he had “no context or ability to evaluate any of the accusations that are made here.”

Lee then revealed what he presented as a significant conflict of interest in the review process. The ABA evaluator who oversaw VanDyke’s assessment was Marcia Davenport, a Montana attorney who had donated to VanDyke’s opponent when he ran for the Montana Supreme Court in 2014.

“She donated to your political opponent in 2014. Is that correct?” Lee asked VanDyke.

“Yeah, I found that out,” VanDyke confirmed.

“And yet the ABA put her in charge of the review process. Am I right about that?” Lee continued.

“It appears so to me, Senator,” VanDyke replied.

Lee called the arrangement “absolutely unbelievable” and said it “probably explains the total ad hominem nature of this disgraceful letter.”

Hawley Dissects the Letter’s Allegations

Before reaching the LGBTQ question, Hawley had systematically dismantled other claims in the ABA letter. He noted that the letter was “full of all kinds of frankly hearsay” with “allegations that are not supported with any kind of detail.”

Hawley asked whether VanDyke had been told the identities of the people the ABA interviewed for their review. VanDyke said he had not. When the evaluator spoke with him, she would say things like “would you be surprised to hear such and such?” and when VanDyke started to respond, “she would say, we don’t have much time and she would want to move on.”

The senator then walked through VanDyke’s qualifications, challenging the ABA’s characterization of him as “lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice of law.” VanDyke confirmed he had been an attorney for more than 14 years, served as solicitor general of two different states, argued 24 cases before courts of appeal, and briefed “hundreds of cases” over his career.

“Are you familiar with the procedures of appellate courts and oral argument?” Hawley asked.

“Very much so, Senator,” VanDyke answered.

Hawley’s Final Verdict on the ABA

After VanDyke’s emotional response about the LGBTQ allegation, Hawley delivered his own assessment of the ABA. He called their allegations “outrageous” and said the organization should be treated “like any other special interest group.”

“I will no longer consider the ABA’s recommendation on any nominee for any position for any reason,” Hawley declared. “They are, as Senator Lee said, a special interest group. They should be treated like any other special interest group. And their shameful performance in this letter, I think, seals the deal beyond any question in my mind.”

Hawley concluded by telling VanDyke directly: “I’m sorry that you’ve had to go through this, Mr. VanDyke.”

Additional Context from Full Remarks

The full hearing footage reveals that the Republican senators’ defense of VanDyke was both procedural and personal. Lee’s discovery that the ABA evaluator had donated to VanDyke’s political opponent provided concrete evidence for the bias claims, rather than relying solely on ideological arguments about the ABA’s political leanings.

VanDyke’s tearful response stood out because judicial nominees typically maintain rigid composure during Senate hearings. The fact that the LGBTQ allegation, rather than the professional criticisms, was what broke his composure suggested the personal nature of the accusation cut deeper than attacks on his legal qualifications.

The exchange also highlighted the broader debate over the ABA’s role in the federal judicial confirmation process. For decades, the organization’s ratings have carried significant weight in Senate deliberations, but Republican senators increasingly argued that the ABA’s evaluations reflected political bias rather than objective professional assessment.

Key Takeaways

• Lawrence VanDyke, Trump’s nominee for the 9th Circuit, broke down in tears when asked about an ABA allegation that he would not commit to being fair to LGBTQ litigants, stating he “did not say that” and affirming all people should be treated with dignity and respect.
• Republican senators revealed that the ABA evaluator who led VanDyke’s review, Marcia Davenport, had previously donated to his political opponent in his 2014 Montana Supreme Court race, raising serious conflict-of-interest concerns about the “not qualified” rating.
• Sen. Josh Hawley declared he would no longer consider ABA recommendations for any nominee, calling the organization a “special interest group” whose review of VanDyke was “a shameful exercise in political bias.”