In responses to written questions, judicial nominees continue to demonstrate they’re unqualified
New responses posted by the Senate Judiciary Committee raise serious concerns.
On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate Judiciary Committee posted responses to written questions for the record from three more of Trump’s judicial picks. The nominees — Justin Olson for the Southern District of Indiana, Brian Lea for the Western District of Tennessee, and Megan Benton for the Western District of Missouri — were evasive in their responses and further called into question their fitness for service as lifetime federal judges.
Justin Olson was asked more questions about his sermons
During the confirmation hearing for these three nominees, Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, asked Justin Olson about a number of things he’s said during sermons. Olson told Kennedy that day that “I believe every word of the Bible.”
While this statement — and Olson’s alarming responses during the hearing — deserved far more follow-up than it received in written questions, Senator Chris Coons did note the following:
Your notes for your Sunday school sermon on April 16, 2017, indicate that you discussed that women should “accept [their husbands’] leadership” and “[r]ecognize that God – not culture, not other men, not tradition – has called wives to be subject to their husband.” In a sermon on July 22, 2024, you referred to “transgenderism, homosexuality, [and] fornication” as “sexual perversion.”
Regarding whether wives should be subject to their husbands, Olson said the question lacked the full context of what he discussed in his “adult Sunday School sermon.” According to Olson, “This sermon on Christian marriage was delivered to members of my church and presumed that the listeners accepted the truth of the Bible and desired to live in conformity to its teachings.” He also said that “My comments were consistent with the doctrine of my church at the time, and many other religious communities in the United States.”
Senator Coons asked Olson whether gay people or people who have consensual sexual intercourse outside of marriage are “sexual perver[ts].” Olson said that he “used the term ‘perversion’ in a technical sense to refer to a deviation from and distortion of a religious standard, not as a derogatory insult.” But when Senator Kennedy asked during the hearing whether Olson believed fornication is a form of sexual perversion, Olson readily responded that “The doctrine of the church that I was at does state that fornication is a sin.” This suggests that Olson’s sermon — describing “transgenderism, homosexuality, [and] fornication” as “sexual perversion” — was indeed meant in a negative sense, assuming he believes being sinful is a bad thing.
This deserves additional scrutiny, as does his reference to “the truth of the Bible” and what that really means.
Justin Olson wouldn’t condemn egregious statements
Ranking Member Dick Durbin opened his questions with this fact: “You currently represent a group of female college athletes, including conservative activist Riley Gaines, in a challenge to the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) transgender eligibility policies.”
Senator Durbin asked Olson questions about several statements made by Riley Gaines, including the following:
Ms. Gaines previously called the University of Pennsylvania “a dogshit elitist institution full of woke r*tards.” Will you condemn this statement?
Ms. Gaines previously claimed that a transgender woman wearing women’s clothing was “akin to blackface.” Will you condemn this statement?
Ms. Gaines previously claimed that anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals “really [are] an attempt to normalize pedophilia.” Will you condemn this statement?
On multiple occasions, Ms. Gaines’s social media posts have led to threats and harassment against young students. Were you aware that her posts about a transgender student winning a homecoming queen title led to death threats against that individual and other high school students? Will you condemn such death threats?
Olson would only say that he’s not familiar and that he would prefer not to comment on purported statements — saying it would be inappropriate under ethics rules that apply to lawyers. Shockingly, he provided no general response to any of these questions to suggest that trans people are deserving of dignity, respect, and safety.
When Senator Coons asked Olson whether he agrees that his work on these issues “creates at least the appearance of partiality with respect to cases involving the rights of transgender people,” Olson said he was simply representing his clients and “pressed all good faith arguments my clients had available, regardless of my views of what might be an ideal policy outcome.” If confirmed, he said, “my personal views or any work that I have performed on behalf of any client I have represented throughout my career will be immaterial to my duty to provide impartial justice and faithfully apply the law to every litigant who appears before me.”
Given his legal career, his sermons, and his deeply held beliefs, it would likely be impossible for a trans person to believe that they are being treated fairly in Olson’s courtroom if he is confirmed.
Brian Lea’s lack of professional experience in Tennessee was raised
As I reported last month, Brian Lea has never practiced in Tennessee — despite being nominated to a Tennessee district court — and was just admitted to the state’s bar last year.
Ranking Member Durbin asked him about this. Lea said that “I applied to the Tennessee Bar because I recognized the thriving and vibrant economy and legal market in my home State and wanted the ability to more freely practice there as part of my national practice.” He was only admitted into the bar, he said, in June 2025. He told Senator Coons that “For the same reason, I sought admission to the Western District of Tennessee soon after being admitted to the Tennessee bar. At the time I began the process of being admitted to the Tennessee Bar, I had not yet applied for this position and certainly had no assurance that I would be nominated.” He conceded to Senator Coons that he is not admitted to practice in the Sixth Circuit, where Tennessee is located, despite being admitted in the First, Fourth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits.
When asked if he’s ever practiced in the state, he responded that “I have enjoyed a national practice, successfully representing clients in courts across the country—whether federal, state, or territorial—without being limited to any one court or locale.” The man loves his freedom (but doesn’t love answering questions directly).
Lea said he hasn’t lived in Tennessee in 20 years — but “regularly” returns for “extended stays” with his family — which, unfortunately for Lea, does not count as legal experience.
Unrelated, but important: When asked if he’d written or spoken about a number of topics, Lea listed the same item under “racial discrimination” and “DEI.” He said “While sitting on a September 12, 2025 panel in Nashville, Tennessee, I mentioned the Department of Justice’s expanded efforts to end racial discrimination based on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.” His characterization of SFFA v. Harvard as being related to “efforts to end racial discrimination” is a disturbing distortion of the Supreme Court’s ruling that rolled back affirmative action in higher education and suggests that he is aligned with this administration’s shameful perversion of federal civil rights law.
Same old, same old
So far during Trump’s second term, 33 judicial nominees have now responded to these written questions — and notably, all 33 have dodged any inquiry related to the outcome of the 2020 election and what happened on January 6, 2021. Senator Richard Blumenthal asked these three nominees during their confirmation hearing about these topics. Their responses to written questions echoed the nonresponses they gave during the hearing.
Ranking Member Dick Durbin has been asking judicial nominees the following question:
On May 26, 2025, in a Truth Social post, President Trump referred to some judges whose decisions he disagrees with, as “USA HATING JUDGES” and “MONSTERS”, who “…SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY…” Do you agree that these federal judges are “USA HATING” and “MONSTERS” “…SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY…”?
No nominees to date, including these three, have mustered the courage to say that federal judges who rule against the administration are not “monsters” — debasing themselves in pursuit of proving their loyalty to the man who nominated them. Instead, they say it would be “inappropriate” or “improper” for them to comment on political issues, statements, or controversies.
And Senator Cory Booker has been asking judicial nominees this question:
Article III Project (A3P) “defends constitutionalist judges and the rule of law.” According to Mike Davis, Founder & President of A3P, “I started the Article III Project in 2019 after I helped Trump win the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh fights. We saw then how relentless—and evil—too many of today’s Democrats have become. They’re Marxists who hate America. They believe in censorship. They have politicized and weaponized our justice systems.” Do you agree with the above statement?
Olson, Lea, and Benton, like most judicial nominees, have refused to answer this question. While a few nominees have made a general statement to suggest that they don’t believe Democrats are evil, only one nominee to date has responded “No.”
These three nominees will likely receive votes in the Senate Judiciary Committee next Thursday, January 15. The Senate is scheduled to be on recess the following week, so the earliest their nominations could be considered by the full Senate is the week of January 26.