The Leadership Conference Opposes the Confirmation of Maria Lanahan to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
View a PDF of the letter here.
OPPOSE THE CONFIRMATION OF MARIA LANAHAN TO THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
Dear Senator:
On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition charged by its diverse membership of more than 240 national organizations to promote and protect the rights of all persons in the United States, we write to express our strong opposition to the nomination of Maria Lanahan to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Leadership Conference intends to include your position on the nomination of Ms. Lanahan in our voting record for the 119th Congress.
The civil rights community has long understood that for there to be equal justice in America, our federal courts must serve everyone and recognize the rights of all of us. This means we must build an equal justice judiciary by ensuring that all who are selected and confirmed to serve in our judiciary are fair-minded and ethical, possess diverse demographic backgrounds and professional experiences, and have a demonstrated commitment to advancing the rights of all people. The president has declared himself king, regularly attacks judges and the judiciary, indicates that he will only nominate those who are loyal to him rather than to the Constitution and laws, and already has a record of selecting those who have been at the forefront of rolling back our civil and human rights. For the future of our multiracial democracy and our freedom, it is imperative that any and all nominees are fair-minded, well-qualified, and committed to civil and human rights. Unfortunately, Ms. Lanahan does not meet these standards and is unqualified to serve on the Eastern District of Missouri.
Ms. Lanahan has been involved in organizations and workplaces that actively spearhead efforts to roll back our civil and human rights. During her time in the Missouri attorney general’s office, first as deputy solicitor general and then as principal deputy solicitor general, Ms. Lanahan worked to strip away crucial civil rights protections, including the right to reproductive health care and the right to unionize. In addition, she is an active member in the Federalist Society and has served on the St. Louis Federalist Society board.[1] This out-of-the-mainstream legal organization represents a sliver of America’s legal profession, and it has played a large role in shaping the judiciary to produce results that limit the recognition and advancement of the civil rights laws and protections for all people.[2] Ms. Lanahan has also been a member of the Teneo Network, a confidential network that is open only to members in their 40s or younger.[3] Leonard Leo, one of the main drivers of the Federalist Society and its attempted judicial takeover, has emboldened the Teneo Network’s endeavor to “crush liberal dominance” in many areas of society, including but not limited to the legal profession.[4] He describes their mission as “fighting a battle for the heart and soul of our culture.”[5] Such affiliations with organizations designing the demise of our civil rights laws and protections is deeply concerning. As her record of hostility towards the rights of all people and her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee show, she would not come to this lifetime position as a fair-minded individual who has a demonstrated commitment to civil and human rights.
Hostility Towards Reproductive Rights
The right to access reproductive health care, including the right to access safe abortion care, is regularly under attack. Ms. Lanhan has contributed to this through cases that she worked on while she was working in the solicitor general’s office.
- Lanahan helped author Missouri’s complaint after the state intervened in FDA v. Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine, a case that challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug mifepristone, one of the drugs used in medication abortion.[6] The complaint cites no plaintiff harmed by the use of mifepristone, but it instead argues only hypothetical injury, lamenting that easier access to medication abortion was “depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers in Plaintiff States” and further stating that this would result in the state’s “loss of federal funds.”[7] The complaint puts forth unsubstantiated claims about safety, including repeatedly calling the medication “dangerous”[8] and claiming that it causes “significant morbidity and mortality.”[9] In fact, repeated studies by the medical community demonstrate that mifepristone is safe,[10] and claims about fatality have been widely and thoroughly disproven.[11]
- Lanahan defended a Missouri law that imposed many restrictions limiting access to abortion care in the name of “Almighty God,” including a total abortion ban.[12] The state was sued by 14 clergy members from seven different religious denominations that support access to abortion services, who argued that the total abortion ban was a violation of the constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state.[13] In her questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Lanahan oddly classifies this case as “a victory for the State” because the plaintiffs eventually asked that the case be dismissed. In reality, after Amendment 3 — a ballot initiative enshrining the right to abortion in the Missouri Constitution — was passed by a majority of voters in Missouri in 2024 and thus nullified the need for a court to overturn the abortion ban, plaintiffs withdrew their claim.[14]
Hostility towards LGBTQ Equality
Ms. Lanahan also has a disqualifying track record when it comes to LGBTQ equality, which includes collaboration with organizations actively working to dismantle crucial civil rights protections for LGBTQ people.
- During her time in the solicitor general’s office, Ms. Lanahan and anti-LGBTQ organization Alliance Defending Freedom, sued Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri after the counties passed local ordinances that banned the dangerous practice of conversion therapy.[15] In this ongoing case, Ms. Lanahan once again perpetuates harmful disinformation and cites studies that have been widely disproven, including the Cass Report, which has been broadly criticized by major medical associations for excluding studies that support the benefits of gender-affirming care.[16]
Hostility Towards Working People and Unions
Our federal judiciary has a deficit when it comes to judges who possess crucial experience supporting working people, and it is vital that our courts have more judges with a background bolstering workplace protections. Unfortunately, Ms. Lanahan has a record of dismantling important union protections for workers in Missouri.
- Lanahan defended a Missouri law that changed the employment status of most public employees to “at-will employees,” significantly hindering public employees’ ability to participate in union activities or receive union protections.[17] In her brief, Ms. Lanahan argues that these employees should be denied grievance procedures after termination because it is “inconsistent” with at-will employment.[18] She also admits that the law “does restrict the State’s ability” to collectively bargain with their employees, but she argues that the right to collectively bargain enshrined in the Missouri Constitution did not have “mandatory collective bargaining subjects,” essentially and erroneously carving out a class of people she believes this right does not apply to.[19] The rights of workers to be protected from discriminatory or random termination, as well as the right to file grievances in the event they are terminated, are essential rights that Ms. Lanahan argued should be stripped away from the vast majority of public workers in Missouri.
Ms. Lanahan would not be a fair-minded jurist committed to equal justice for all. We strongly urge the Senate to oppose her nomination to the Eastern District of Missouri. If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director and advisor of the fair courts program, at (202) 466-3311. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Maya Wiley
President & CEO
Jesselyn McCurdy
Executive Vice President of Government Affairs
[1] Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (accessed May 28, 2025).
[2] See Emma Green, How the Federalist Society Won, The New Yorker (July 24, 2022); Robert O’Harrow Jr. & Shawn Boburg, A Conservative Activist’s Behind-the-Scenes Campaign to Remake the Nation’s Courts, The Washington Post (May 21, 2019).
[3] Andy Kroll and Andrea Bernstein, Inside the “Private and Confidential” Conservative Group That Promises to “Crush Liberal Dominance,” ProPublica (March 9, 2023).
[4] Id
[5] Teneo Community Vision, The Teneo Network (accessed June 2, 2025).
[6] Motion to Intervene by Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas, FDA v. Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024).
[8] Supra note 6.
[9] Supra note 6 at 12.
[10] Press Release: Leading Medical Organizations Reaffirm the Safety of Mifepristone, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (May 22, 2025).
[11] Questions and Answers on Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy Through Ten Weeks Gestation, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (last updated February 11, 2025).
[13] Blackmon v. Missouri, 2322-CC00120 (22d Cir., MO, 2024).
[14] Petitioners’ Motion To Dismiss Appeal in Blackmon v. Missouri, 2322-CC00120 (22d Cir., MO, 2024).
[15] Wyatt Bury v. City of Kansas City, 4:25-cv-00084 (W.D. MO, February 7, 2025).
[16] Elsie Carson-Holt, UK’s largest doctors’ union condemns Cass Review’s attacks on gender-affirming care, LGBTQ Nation (August 2, 2024).
[17] AFSCME, et al v. Missouri, et al, SC99179 (MO Sup. Ct. October 4, 2022).
[18] Appellants’ Brief in AFSCME, et al v. Missouri, et al, SC99179 (MO Sup. Ct. October 4, 2022).
[19] Id. at 52, 53.