MEMO: Civil Rights Are at Stake with Harmeet Dhillon’s Nomination
To: Interested Persons
From: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Re: Harmeet Dhillon’s Confirmation Hearing and Civil Rights
On February 26, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its consideration of the nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to serve as assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights coalition, submitted a statement to the committee raising profoundly troubling aspects of her record on civil rights and urging the Senate to reject her nomination. The Leadership Conference also published a brief detailing the history of the division, the importance of having strong leadership, and the recent whiplash in federal civil rights enforcement.
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has the critical responsibility of enforcing our nation’s federal civil rights laws and ensuring equal justice under the law on behalf of all of our communities. At a time when multiracial democracy and fundamental rights are in jeopardy, and in the wake of Pam Bondi’s confirmation as attorney general and the actions she has already taken to undermine our rights, it is critical that the Civil Rights Division has a leader who is committed to defending the civil and human rights of all people.
Throughout the hearing, however, Ms. Dhillon did nothing to assure the civil rights community that she would fairly and robustly enforce the nation’s civil rights laws or be independent. Rather, our concerns are heightened. Her record and many of her troubling responses to questions related to civil rights and democracy disqualify her from serving as assistant attorney general for civil rights.
Harmeet Dhillon would not robustly enforce the Voting Rights Act.
This year marks 60 years since President Johnson signed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), the passage of which The Leadership Conference coalition fought to secure. Senator Hirono asked Ms. Dhillon whether her position is that bringing cases under Section 2 of the VRA requires discriminatory intent. She responded by saying that “I would say, to generalize, yes it is.” This is an extremely disturbing statement from the prospective governmental official who would be in charge of enforcing the VRA, which protects people against voting measures that are discriminatory in intent and in effect. Her response flies in the face of Congress’ intent behind the VRA and its reauthorizations, decades of jurisprudence, and most recently the Supreme Court’s affirmation in Allen v. Milligan that Section 2 bans discriminatory effects.
In response to a question from Senator Klobuchar about Section 2, Ms. Dhillon went out of her way to note that the Supreme Court struck down other sections of the VRA — referencing Shelby County v. Holder — noting that Congress would need to act for those sections to again be operable. In fact, Ms. Dhillon strongly opposes the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore the Voting Rights Act to its full power. She penned an op-ed for Fox News in which she called the bill a “power grab,” rejected the voluminous evidence of voter suppression around the country, and took strong issue with the practice adopted by Congress in 1965 by which the federal government reviewed proposed voting changes by jurisdictions with a history of discrimination.
Ms. Dhillon’s deeply troubling voting rights record and responses during the hearing are not reassuring.
Harmeet Dhillon has an anti-voting rights record and supports discriminatory voting laws.
Senator Padilla, a former secretary of state, offered this incredibly accurate summary of Ms. Dhillon’s anti-voting rights background: “Your record demonstrates to me, and as a fellow Californian I’ve seen your work closely, you’ve opposed key voting rights protections over the years, including the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. You fought against the use of the Voting Rights Act to challenge discriminatory laws. You’ve also spread disinformation about the 2020 election, and you defended restrictive voting laws in multiple states. Now in 2019, you sued the California Department of Motor Vehicles, alleging issues with the state’s motor voter program. However, an audit found no widespread voter fraud. The lawsuit was unsuccessful, and that was just one of, I think, about 10 lawsuits that you brought against the state when I was secretary of state, all unsuccessful, many dismissed.”
During her questioning, Senator Britt — from the state of Alabama that gave us Selma and Shelby County — raised the issue of documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, despite the fact that federal law already prohibits voting in federal elections by persons who are not U.S. citizens. Ms. Dhillon expressed support for this requirement and thanked the senator for introducing legislation related to this requirement, saying that “I do think that it would be a tremendous boost to voter confidence and the integrity of elections in the states if there was assurance that only citizens are voting, similarly that they’re only voting once.” Civil rights organizations, including The Leadership Conference, strongly oppose these measures because they are solutions in search of a problem that cynically trades on dangerous myths and stereotypes. Our nation already has strict laws and effective safeguards in place to ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections, and every serious analysis conducted has concluded that allegations of widespread noncitizen voting lack any basis in fact.
Harmeet Dhillon would lend credibility to claims of ‘reverse racism.’
Senator Schmitt said that “unlike most ‘major’ civil rights organizations today, you oppose racial discrimination in all forms” and asked Ms. Dhillon if reverse racism is still racism. She replied, “I don’t even use the term ‘reverse racism.’ It’s just racism to discriminate on the basis of race.” In addition to Senator Schmitt’s false accusation that major civil rights organizations, like ours, do not focus on discrimination in all forms, Ms. Dhillon’s response was troubling. She should have included a firm clarification that she understands who is actually targeted by racism. The leader of the Civil Rights Division should understand the history of the laws and communities they protect and be laser-focused on enforcing civil rights laws and working to dismantle the white supremacy that permeates American institutions and society. It is shocking that she instead appealed to the racial resentment of white people against the perceived injustice of reverse discrimination.
Senator Schmitt also noted that Target said it wanted to hire 20 percent more Black employees, which he called “an overt racial quota system.” He asked Ms. Dhillon if Target’s practice raises red flags, and she responded that “If the facts are as you just described, then I believe that practice is illegal and unconstitutional.” The attorney general has already issued a charge for the division to pursue corporations and others for initiatives that promote equity and inclusion, and it is alarming that Ms. Dhillon would be using the division’s resources to pursue meritless cases and abandon the core work of the division.
At a time when the administration seeks to roll back the nation’s civil rights progress, we need an assistant attorney general for civil rights who will vigorously defend bedrock civil rights statutes and protections and not shift enforcement resources to false claims of supposed discrimination.
Harmeet Dhillon would attack LGBTQ+ rights and continue the administration’s assault on trans people in particular.
No senator asked Ms. Dhillon about the protection of LGBTQ+ rights. Still, during her opening statement, Ms. Dhillon stated that “Young girls and women are seeing their dreams of hard fought equal access to sports opportunities — of even basic privacy, modesty, and dignity in women’s private spaces — being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.” As The Leadership Conference’s statement for the record notes, Ms. Dhillon has been one of the most vocal bullies of transgender people. Some of the most radical litigation brought by her organization attacks transgender people, and in particular transgender youth and those who support them, such as doctors, mental health experts, and teachers — fighting back against what she calls “radical gender ideology.”
It is beyond disturbing that an individual with this record could be confirmed to enforce the civil rights laws meant to protect LGBTQ+ people. Ms. Dhillon has worked to deny, diminish, and erase the existence of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people and would not protect them from discrimination — as is the charge of the assistant attorney general for civil rights.
Harmeet Dhillon would attack reproductive rights and health care access.
In Senator Moody’s description of Ms. Dhillon’s record, she uplifted Ms. Dhillon’s record of failing to protect the rights of women and those seeking reproductive health care. Ms. Dhillon calls herself a “lawyer for the pro-life movement.” She has expressed disdain for those who choose to exercise their right to make autonomous decisions about their body and health, having openly said she rejects “abortion rights.” Ms. Dhillon’s aggressive language and inflammatory rhetoric around abortion is deeply concerning.
In addition, Senator Moody and Senator Hawley focused on prosecuting interference with so-called crisis pregnancy centers. Given the role of the Civil Rights Division in enforcing federal laws, as well as ensuring safe access to reproductive health care — especially access to abortion services through the enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act — this is concerning. The FACE Act prohibits “threats of force, obstruction and property damage intended to interfere with reproductive health care services” as well as other applicable criminal statutes based on intimidation tactics. Already, the attorney general has signaled that she will use the resources of the DOJ, including the leader of the Civil Rights Division, to not only relinquish enforcement of these laws but to investigate previous and ongoing FACE Act criminal prosecutions.
Harmeet Dhillon would not be independent and threatens to further politicize the DOJ.
Senator Coons asked Ms. Dhillon what she would do if the president asked her to do something illegal or unconstitutional. Ms. Dhillon emphasized her close relationship with the president and noted that she has represented Trump for four years and said that “In all of those years, in multiple cases, in multiple jurisdictions, the president has never asked me to do anything that I found to be objectionable, immoral, unlawful, or illegal.” Ms. Dhillon has been an ardent supporter of Trump’s baseless claims of rampant voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Efforts by attorneys to challenge the 2020 election results through litigation without any evidence or facts to support their claims have led to numerous disciplinary actions by courts and bar associations. In this context, her statement that Trump never asked her to do anything objectionable is astonishing. This administration’s trend of installing election deniers into critical civil rights posts should alarm everyone.
Given Ms. Dhillon’s fidelity to Trump and her work to further his political agenda, there is significant cause for concern that if she is confirmed to this position she would not possess the necessary independence to defend our Constitution and the rights of all people. This concern is compounded by the confirmation of Pam Bondi as attorney general and the actions she has already taken at the DOJ.
It is also worth noting that when Senator Klobuchar asked Ms. Dhillon whether she would reassign or fire career attorneys in the division based on their ideological or political affiliations, she said that “Without getting into the job itself and understanding all of the motivations of individuals, I can’t really commit to any particular personnel decisions” — though she noted it’s generally her practice not to react to people based solely on political views. Her response should have simply been “no.” Instead, she left ample room — and concern — that she would pursue actions against staff who may have ideological or political differences.
Additional concerning responses from other nominees
The committee also considered the nominations of Aaron Reitz to be the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Policy and John Sauer to be solicitor general. Ranking Member Durbin asked both nominees whether an elected official should be allowed to defy a federal court order — a relevant question as federal courts across the nation rule against the president, and as a federal judge just this week said the administration is not complying with his order to resume USAID funding.
Mr. Reitz responded that “there are some instances in which a public official is lawfully bound by the holding of a particular court, in which case that official would in fact lawfully be required to be bound by it. I cannot speak…for all instances in which that dynamic may or may not be at play given a certain lawsuit.” Ranking Member Durbin responded by saying “That is an incredible statement by someone who wants to be part of the Department of Justice.” When Durbin asked Mr. Sauer the same question, he stated that he doesn’t “want to speak to hypotheticals.” He said that “Generally, if there is a direct court order that binds a federal or state official, they should follow it.” His response that court orders should “generally” be followed is a shocking statement from the nominee to serve as solicitor general of the United States.
As Ranking Member Durbin noted, this “goes to the heart of the question for future constitutional challenges we face as a nation. There is a great fear among many people, academics, and people in the legal profession as to whether this president would defy a court order, which basically would put him above the law, at least in his own eyes, and I want to know what circumstances Mr. Reitz and Mr. Sauer believe justify that conclusion.” Even though Trump recently declared that “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” Mr. Sauer contended that “I have represented President Trump for the better part of two years, and I think that is not a plausible scenario.”
It is also appalling that Aaron Reitz has a history of sharing deeply disturbing posts on social media. As Senator Padilla pointed out, he posted on February 5, 2021 that “Bostock (Gorsuch, 2020) is the worst SCOTUS decision since Obergefell (Kennedy, 2015). We all knew that’d be the case. But the left’s almost total reliance on Bostock to support its insane cram-down of the radical LGBTQ/SOGI agenda is breathtaking.” This attack on the decisions that recognize the dignity and rights of the LGBTQ+ community is unacceptable. Senator Booker also revealed that Mr. Reitz posted a message comparing the Obergefell decision to Dred Scott — a horrifying comparison of the decision that recognized marriage equality to one of our nation’s most egregious Supreme Court decisions that declared that people who were enslaved were not U.S. citizens. In yet another awful post that Senator Padilla showed, Mr. Reitz made clear that he thinks “‘birthright citizenship’ is not a thing.” These and more appalling posts make clear that Mr. Reitz lacks the basic understanding of our Constitution and is unable and unwilling to recognize the dignity and rights of all people in America, which is deeply concerning given the post to which he’s been nominated.
For more on the first Trump administration’s across-the-board assault on civil and human rights, many which occurred through the Department of Justice, read The Leadership Conference’s timeline of rollbacks here.
If you have any questions or need more information, please contact Patrick McNeil at [email protected].