Kansas judicial nominee gives alarming response to question about federal antidiscrimination law
Tony Mattivi, nominated to the District of Kansas, has perhaps never heard of Title VII.
During last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on judicial nominations, Eighth Circuit nominee Justin Smith — for good reason — received most of the attention. By the time that three Kansas district court nominees took their seats to testify, only three senators remained to ask them questions.
Republican Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri was chairing the hearing and first asked each nominee — Jeffrey Kuhlman, Tony Mattivi, and Tony Powell — to describe their judicial philosophy. Mattivi, who is currently the director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, said that he would describe his “judicial philosophy as textualism when it comes to interpreting statutes and originalism when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.” He said it was Justice Antonin Scalia, he believed, who made that distinction, and he agreed with it. “That’s the distinction that I would follow on the bench.”
Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana was also still at the hearing, and he ran through several hypotheticals to quiz the nominees. He turned to Mattivi last and posed a fairly straightforward question about federal antidiscrimination law:
I’m 17, and I go to work for McDonald’s — go to apply for a job — and I’m wearing a burqa. And the McDonald’s manager says: I really want to hire you, but we don’t allow religious symbols at my restaurant, or at our restaurants. What does the law say about that?
Mattivi responded that “The law prohibits the application of a religious test applied by the government, right? Not by private employers. So, I would say that’s the basis of…”
Senator Kennedy jumped in to ask if Mattivi was sure about that, and he responded: “Well, it depends on whether, I mean, there’s other factors, right?”
“Let me just ask you,” Senator Kennedy replied. “Can McDonald’s say we have a policy against religious symbols, and you can’t wear a burqa? Who’s going to win? McDonald’s or the person wearing the burqa?”
“Honestly, senator, I’m not sure who would win in that situation,” Mattivi said. “I’d need to know more facts.” Senator Kennedy said he appreciated Mattivi’s honesty.
On Friday, Alliance for Justice (AFJ) shared a clip of this exchange across its social media channels, noting that “Tony Mattivi doesn’t seem to know basic discrimination law.”
That appears to be the case. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or applicants on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), or national origin. Despite claiming to be a textualist when it comes to interpreting statutes, Mattivi’s response that “the law prohibits the application of a religious test applied by the government” but “not by private employers” is in conflict with the text of this landmark civil rights statute.
“Federal judges wield enormous power over our day-to-day lives and must have a mastery of the law and courtroom procedure,” said Christine Chen Zinner, federal research and advocacy director at AFJ, in a statement to Nomination Notes. “Mattivi’s uninformed response to Sen. Kennedy’s basic question about religious discrimination wouldn’t pass muster in a first-year law school class. His nomination exemplifies yet another unfit and unqualified Trump pick for the federal bench.”
In 2015, the Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores holding that an employer may not refuse to hire someone if the employer was motivated by avoiding the need to accommodate a religious practice. The EEOC’s website shares the plaintiff’s story:
Samantha Elauf was a teenager when she applied for a job at Abercrombie & Fitch in her hometown of Tulsa, Okla. She wasn’t hired because she wore a headscarf, or hijab, as part of her Muslim faith. She was told that her hijab didn’t conform to the company’s “Look Policy.” Samantha filed a charge against Abercrombie & Fitch with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating Samantha’s charge and failing to reach a voluntary settlement with the employer, EEOC filed suit against Abercrombie & Fitch alleging religious discrimination and eventually taking the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held, in an 8-1 decision, that an employer may not refuse to hire an applicant to avoid accommodating a religious practice. The court ruled that such behavior violates the prohibition on religious discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The following month, in July 2015, Abercrombie decided to resolve the EEOC’s claims, and the company paid $25,670 in damages to Elauf and $18,983 in court costs.
It is shocking, but perhaps unsurprising, that a Trump judicial nominee doesn’t know the very basics of federal antidiscrimination law. Mattivi, who was actually born the same year that President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, has no civil rights experience, and that is a deeply troubling pattern among Trump’s nominees for the judiciary during both of his terms.
According to his Senate questionnaire, Mattivi had conversations with both Kansas senators about his interest in becoming a federal judge from approximately January through March of 2025 — and he ultimately became aware of his nomination on February 17, 2026, when Trump called him to say he would be nominated. In the nearly two months until his confirmation hearing on April 15, Mattivi clearly didn’t bother to brush up on anything related to civil rights law in preparation for the hearing — which constitutes his job interview for a lifetime seat on the federal bench.
We’ll see, likely early next week, how Mattivi responds to committee members’ written questions for the record, which will hopefully address issues related to federal civil rights law and Mattivi’s understanding of what constitutes discrimination.
The Senate will then ultimately decide whether to confirm Mattivi to — or hire him for — this powerful job that comes with lifetime tenure. His performance last week already indicates that he must be rejected.