Senate advances the nomination of Trump lawyer and anti-civil rights extremist
Justin Smith is one step closer to serving on the Eighth Circuit for life.
On Thursday afternoon, the Senate voted to advance the nomination of Justin Smith to serve in a Missouri seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Smith, who is currently one of Trump’s personal lawyers, will likely receive a confirmation vote on Monday evening.
If confirmed, Smith will be the second of Trump’s personal lawyers appointed to a federal appeals court during his second term. Last year, the Senate confirmed Emil Bove to the Third Circuit. Matthew Schwartz, another Trump lawyer who has been nominated to the Second Circuit, is currently awaiting a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Smith is an election-denying Trump loyalist who has an anti-civil rights record and who is deeply entrenched in Leonard Leo’s dark money operation. That he is about to ascend to a lifetime seat on a powerful federal appellate court is a shameful moment for our democracy.
Election denier
“Mr. Smith is also an election denier,” Ranking Member Dick Durbin said at Smith’s confirmation hearing in April. “In 2020, he signed an amicus brief in Texas v. Pennsylvania seeking to overturn the results of the election. President Trump continues to deny that he lost the 2020 election, and he has bragged about interfering in this year’s midterm elections. A key component of his plan is installing loyalists at the Justice Department and on the bench.”
At the hearing, Smith repeatedly refused to say that Trump lost the 2020 election to President Biden. “I acknowledge, as Chairman Grassley was talking about in his opening remarks, that under Article II and the 12th Amendment, that the Electoral College cast their votes in December of 2020,” Smith said in response to Senator Durbin. “In January of 2021, Congress met to open and count those votes, and as a result of that process, Congress certified Joe Biden as the president.”
Senator Richard Blumenthal asked him about that election as well, in addition to asking him questions about January 6. Smith would not respond. “In other words, you’re not going to answer. You’re going to give me the same rote, rehearsed answer, which frankly makes you look ridiculous, if not pathetic,” Senator Blumenthal said. “If you don’t have the courage now to state your independent judgment on a clear factual issue, I don’t know how the United States Senate can confirm you as a member of one of the most powerful courts in the country.”
He also dodged related questions during the hearing from Senators Mazie Hirono and Peter Welch. And in responses to written questions for the record, he continued to be evasive.
Loyalist Trump lawyer
During the hearing, Senator Durbin addressed Smith’s legal representation of Trump, noting that he is now being rewarded with a lifetime appointment after proving his loyalty to the president. “Mr. Smith is so loyal to the president, he continues to represent him in two pending cases before the courts,” Senator Durbin said. “Mr. Smith represents President Trump in two lawsuits filed by E. Jean Carroll. This is not a case where the legal system has been weaponized against President Trump, as he and his MAGA allies have repeatedly claimed. Rather, Ms. Carroll is one of dozens of women who’ve bravely come forward to credibly accuse the president of sexual assault. Of course, Mr. Trump infamously bragged about his assault of women.”
Smith serves as the attorney of record for Trump in his effort to have the Supreme Court overturn the $83.3 million civil judgment entered against him in the sexual abuse and defamation case brought by Carroll. In his petition for certiorari to the Court, Smith alleged that Carroll lied about the sexual assault and based her narrative on the storyline of a 2012 Law and Order: SVU episode. Smith egregiously misrepresented the events portrayed in the episode to better match up with Carroll’s account, which Senator Durbin pointed out. “It’s worth noting there is a Supreme Court rule requiring attorneys to present accurate information,” he said.
Smith also served as Trump’s personal lawyer in Trump v. United States, when the Court held that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all “official” actions taken within their constitutional authority. Smith played a central role in the case. In his Truth Social post announcing Smith’s nomination, Trump recognized Smith’s significant contribution, stating that “Justin…played a BIG role in securing a Supreme Court Landmark Victory on Presidential Immunity.”
Senator Adam Schiff focused on this during his questioning of Smith, and Senator Hirono also asked questions about his representation of Trump. When she asked Smith whether he would recuse himself if a case came before him in which Trump’s personal interests are heavily implicated, Smith said that he would recuse himself from any case he’s been personally involved in, and for any other case he would consult the judicial canons, the appropriate recusal rules, and his colleagues. Senator Hirono cited the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which says that “A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
“I would say that in any case involving President Trump’s personal interests, you should recuse yourself, because it is very clear where your loyalties lie,” she said.
Following the hearing, in his very first written question for the record, Senator Durbin posed this question to Smith: Have you ever represented a client who was found liable for sexual abuse? If so, please provide the name of your client. Smith was forced to respond that he represents Trump “in an appeal of a verdict that included what we contend was an erroneous sexual abuse finding” — citing two Trump-appointed Second Circuit judges who dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. When asked if he believes the verdicts against Trump are legitimate, Smith responded that “I do not believe that the verdicts in the Carroll cases are in accordance with the law or the facts.”
Right-wing, anti-civil rights extremist
In a July 2024 piece written for Breitbart, Smith wrote that “Republican attorneys general are critical in the fight against the radical left. We need true conservatives to defeat the abortion industrial complex, the lawlessness plaguing blue cities, and the woke ideology invading our schools.”
In their letter to the Senate, People For the American Way addressed this quote, writing that “It is hard to imagine the person who made those statements putting aside his personal feelings to fairly and neutrally decide cases involving abortion care, the Trump administration’s lawless assaults on Democratic-run jurisdictions, or any civil rights principle that MAGA labels as ‘woke.’”
Smith’s civil rights record, including his work to overturn the results of the 2020 election, is appalling. According to People For’s letter, “Transgender Americans have felt the brunt of Smith’s attacks. He represented Arizona elected officials in defending a state law limiting trans people’s participation in sports. He also helped them defend a law prohibiting trans people from correcting their birth certificates unless they have had surgery. Courts have ruled in favor of the trans plaintiffs in both cases.”
In the brief he submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox/West Virginia v. B.P.J. — arguing against the participation of trans women and girls in school sports — Smith referred to them as “males.” In that amicus brief, he wrote that “The States of Arizona, Idaho, and West Virginia, and their people, have suffered irreparable harm from the injunction of the sports participation laws that were enacted by their elected representatives. Girls in Arizona and elsewhere have suffered harm by being defeated and displaced by biological males.”
Smith also filed a brief on behalf of the American College of Pediatricians defending the Missouri Save Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act — a law that banned medically necessary gender-affirming care for young people and imposed restrictions on Medicaid coverage for all trans people. It is worth noting that the organization Smith represented is an SPLC-designated hate group.
In a blog post, Alliance for Justice and Lambda Legal outlined Smith’s dangerous record. “Throughout his career defending anti-LGBTQ+ laws, he’s repeatedly used inappropriate and dehumanizing language while advocating for policies that enshrine ugly discrimination,” they wrote. “That record raises serious concerns about whether he can serve fairly and impartially on the federal bench.”
In April, 21 reproductive rights, health, and justice organizations and organizations committed to health equity wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee leadership to share their concerns about several judicial nominees due to their “deeply problematic records related to reproductive freedom and other fundamental rights.” This included Smith.
In their letter, the organizations wrote:
In 2025, Smith represented Arizona’s Republican lawmakers in their attempt to defend remaining state abortion restrictions after voters in Arizona passed a ballot initiative to enshrine the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. Despite the newly passed constitutional amendment, Smith argued that the state should still enforce: a ban on accessing abortion care via telehealth, a ban based on the reason someone was seeking care, and a law that required multiple trips to a health care provider before being able to access care. An Arizona state court ultimately ruled the laws violated the state’s constitution and blocked them from being enforced.
Prior to his time in private practice, Smith worked at the Missouri Attorney General’s office where he defended numerous abortion bans in the state. He also defended a county clerk who did not allow a 17-year-old seeking abortion care to access a judicial bypass needed for minors to receive abortion care without parental consent under Missouri law. The 17-year-old sued the clerk after she was forced to travel to a neighboring state to access care, arguing that the clerk violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Following oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Smith was quoted in The Catholic Missourian as saying “And we hope and pray that the Supreme Court will grant that request after today’s arguments, and will allow states to protect those unborn children who are ‘fearfully and wonderfully made’” — a reference to a Bible verse.
In his Senate questionnaire, Smith noted that from 2007 to 2009 — while he was in law school — he operated a blog anonymously, typically writing under the pen name “Rawhide.” A December 2007 post by “Rawhide” stated: “Abortion is murder. Gay marriage is sin.”
In their report on his nomination, Alliance for Justice also states that “While working for Governor Greitens, Smith supported efforts to weaken unions with “right-to-work” legislation that takes away workers’ ability to collectively bargain for fair wages, benefits, and respect on the job. In his other roles working in the Missouri government, Smith also advanced policies that were explicitly friendly towards Big Oil and fossil fuel producers. Smith stood in the way of public efforts to implement common-sense environmental regulations.”
This is not the record of someone who deserves a promotion to a lifetime federal judgeship.
Dark money ties
Smith is connected to several organizations in Leonard Leo’s orbit, including serving on the boards of American Patriot Fighters, Publius Fund, First Principles Action, and Yorktown Fund all within the last few years. He is also a member of Teneo — a confidential network, promising to “crush liberal dominance,” that is open only to members in their 40s or younger. Leo is the network’s chairman.
When Senator Coons asked Smith in written questions if he thinks it’s appropriate for a federal judge to be a member of an organization like Teneo, Smith said “Yes.” When asked if he will discontinue his membership in the Teneo Network if he is confirmed as a judge, Smith responded “No.”
During Smith’s hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse walked through some of his connections to these and other organizations, describing the web of groups as “a pretty remarkable creation presumably designed to mislead.” At the end of his remarks outlining these organizations, he concluded with this:
When we get to you, you’ve got connections with almost all of them. You’ve got connections with the Yorktown Fund. You’ve got connections with the Concord Fund. You’ve got connections with the Lexington Fund. You’ve got connections with Club for Growth Action in Missouri, American Patriot Fighters, First Principles Action, Defend Missouri, Publius Fund, and Teneo Network — all of which get money from the Leonard Leo bug from that operation. So it looks to me like what we have here is somebody who is going to be planted on the court and bide your time until you get a case in which this group of front groups has an interest. And then they will turn up the way they do in the Supreme Court — in a flotilla, a phony front group of amici. And when that happens, I’m here to predict that you will rule for them 100 percent of the time.
Senator Durbin also referenced this in his opening remarks at the hearing and in his questioning. “Mr. Smith has extensive right-wing political affiliations and ties to dark money entities. One example: In 2023, Mr. Smith served as the treasurer for the Missouri chapter of the Club for Growth, a conservative super PAC. What a coincidence it is, then, that the organization spent thousands of dollars in consulting, provided by Pervinco LLC, an entity that Mr. Smith owned. This apparent self-dealing raises serious ethical questions — not the first in this administration,” Senator Durbin said.
Justin Smith’s election denial, his legal representation of and loyalty to Trump, his extreme anti-civil rights record, and his deep connections to Leonard Leo’s operation make it impossible to believe that he has any intention of leaving his personal views behind if he is confirmed to a lifetime seat on the Eighth Circuit.
Yet another nominee where I read all the negatives about them and then wonder how many Democrats will vote to confirm them.