SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
adeel mangi
Dozens of Former Judges Join Call for Senate to Reject Bove's Judicial Nomination
"Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position."
Jul 15, 2025
With two days to go until the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on advancing the judicial nomination of President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Emil Bove, more than 75 former federal and state judges wrote to lawmakers to demand they reject the "deeply inappropriate" appointment.
Confirming Bove to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit would not only "compromise the integrity of the courts" and "set a dangerous precedent" that "personal fealty rather than constitutional duty" can secure judicial power, said the judges, but would also elevate someone who has allegedly "plotted to violate court orders," according to a recent whistleblower report.
The judges noted that the whistleblower, former Department of Justice lawyer Erez Reuveni, has offered to testify under oath and has provided the committee with "compelling evidence" that Bove told DOJ staffers to "ignore" any court orders that challenged Trump's mass deportation operation—yet the Republican-controlled panel has not invited Reuveni to speak to lawmakers.
On Tuesday, committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) rejected a request to hold additional hearings on Bove's nomination before voting, saying they were "unnecessary."
"The Senate has a duty to hear that testimony," said the former judges, including Republican-nominated former circuit judges J. Michael Luttig, Timothy Lewis, and Paul Michel.
The judges wrote that "Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position."
The letter is only the latest push to stop senators from confirming Bove, currently the principal associate deputy attorney general at the DOJ. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 civil society organizations, wrote to senators last month, saying Bove does not meet the "basic requirements" to be a federal judge, including being "fair-minded, well-qualified, and committed to civil and human rights."
Like the Leadership Conference, the judges on Tuesday pointed to Bove's views on and conduct regarding the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which the DOJ official "refuses to condemn." Bove also investigated and fired dozens of FBI agents who had been involved in probing the attacks, which were aimed at stopping lawmakers from certifying Trump's 2020 election loss.
"It is disqualifying alone that Mr. Bove targeted or terminated Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel and career DOJ prosecutors for honorably investigating violent criminals who assaulted police officers and intended to murder members of Congress and our nation's vice president on January 6, 2021," wrote the judges.
They also pointed to Bove's role in dropping corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, which prompted the resignation of several disgusted staff attorneys, and his record of belittling and abusing staffers when he was a federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District—a pattern that made him the subject of an email from defense attorneys who expressed concern about Bove's "power plays" and "professionalism."
"Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position," wrote the lawyers.
Gregg Nunziata, executive director at the Society for the Rule of Law, said the "remarkable" letter demonstrated how "the case against Mr. Bove's confirmation" is "about fundamental unfitness for the judicial role."
The Senate committee is set to vote on Bove's nomination on Thursday, and Republicans on the panel are expected to approve the appointment—even though Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) previously said he would not support nominations of people who refused to condemn the January 6 attacks. After the committee vote, Bove would need to be confirmed by the full chamber.
On a questionnaire given to him by the Senate as part of his confirmation process, Bove said "the characterization of the events on January 6 is a matter of significant political debate," and declined to comment on his views.
On the same document, Bove did not rule out Trump's potential run for a third term—which would violate the U.S. Constitution's 22nd Amendment.
While the judges outlined Bove's unfitness for the lifetime appeals court seat, journalist Lydia Polgreen noted that as the committee moved toward a likely confirmation, condemnation should also be aimed at members of the Democratic Party who "caved to anti-Muslim smears" last year and failed to confirm veteran lawyer Adeel Mangi for the seat on the 3rd Circuit—leaving the spot open for Trump's former personal attorney.
As Common Dreams reported last year, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned whether Mangi condemned the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel in October 2023. They also accused Mangi of antisemitism due to his membership on the advisory board for the Rutgers Center for Security, Race, and Rights, which hosted speakers who—like more than half of U.S. adults currently—were critical of Israel.
The "monthslong onslaught of baseless, disgusting attacks on Mangi," as HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery called them, were successful, and convinced Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to vote against the "highly qualified, widely endorsed, successful litigator."
"The history of trying to fill this powerful court seat," said Bendery, "is just as infuriating as where it could be headed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Bullying of Adeel Manji Tells Muslim Americans They Are 2nd Class Citizens
The treatment of the first Muslim federal appellate nominee sends a message to people of Muslim faith with aspirations for the federal bench: don’t bother, unless you, too, want to be branded as a terrorist-sympathizer.
Apr 10, 2024
President Joe Biden’s recent nomination of a Harvard-educated litigation partner from a white-shoe law firm to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit should have been pretty run of the mill, as far as judicial confirmation processes go.
But one aspect of the nominee’s bio has contorted what would likely otherwise have been an uneventful confirmation process into a grotesque spectacle: The nominee, Adeel Mangi, is a Muslim American of Pakistani descent. If confirmed, he would be the first Muslim federal appellate judge in the country.
No non-Muslim judicial nominee has been asked whether they condemn the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel, accused of celebrating 9/11, or asked to confirm that they condemn genocide.
It started at his confirmation hearings in December 2023, which his young children attended.
“Do you condemn the atrocities of the Hamas terrorists?” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) asked. “Is there any justification for those atrocities?”
“Do you believe that Zionist settler colonialism was a provocation that justified Hamas’ atrocity against Jews in Israel?” demanded Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) insinuated that Mangi “celebrate[s] 9/11,” rattling off a list of speakers invited to an event organized by Rutgers Law School’s Center for Security, Race, and Rights to commemorate the 2001 attacks—which Mangi did not attend, had no apparent role in organizing, and, he said, of which he was not even aware. Mangi had been a member of the center’s advisory board.
When Democrats had the floor, they revisited the topic to give Mangi an opportunity to denounce terrorism and genocide—which he did, repeatedly and unequivocally. But even in their friendly form, the questions left an impression that religious and racial stereotypes had hijacked the hearings.
“Is there any hesitation on your part to condemn genocide?" Peter Welch (D-Vt.) asked. “Is there any hesitation on your part to condemn any person who commits terrorist activities in violence toward innocent people?”
As the CEO of the National Council of Jewish Women, Sheila Katz, put it: “It was a heartbreaking scene for the first Muslim American federal circuit judicial nominee to face relentless questioning on Israel, terrorism including September 11, and the Holocaust.”
This treatment is far outside the norm for nominees to the bench. No non-Muslim judicial nominee has been asked whether they condemn the October 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel, accused of celebrating 9/11, or asked to confirm that they condemn genocide.
Islamophobic questioning is not the only way Mangi’s treatment has departed from the average confirmation process. Republican senators have also given inordinate attention to Mangi’s record of pro bono service. He represented the family of an incarcerated man murdered by a correctional officer and is on the advisory board of Alliance of Families for Justice, a nonprofit that supports families impacted by mass incarceration that has advocated for the release of aging prisoners, including people convicted of killing police officers. The senators used this to say that he has “sympathy for, and association with, some of the most radical elements in society,” including, as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) put it, “those who support cop killers.”
This twisting of Mangi’s pro bono record to paint him as criminal-adjacent is shocking but not surprising. Diverse nominees—including people of color and women—are routinely grilled on their positions on civil rights and criminal justice more intensively than white men nominated to the bench. One study found that nominees of color like Mangi get more than twice as many questions on criminal justice as white nominees. And nominees with experience in public defense—an essential role in our legal system—face particularly brutal questioning. In recent history, these inquiries have increasingly sounded less like questioning and more like badgering of women and people of color about their public interest work, heavy with insinuation that representing marginalized people makes one unfit for the bench.
This is illustrated in the case of Arianna Freeman, a Biden nominee who became the first Black woman to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Referring to her 12 years as a public defender, Cruz told her that she had “devoted [her] entire professional career to representing murderers, to representing rapists, representing child molesters.” He branded her a “zealot” for defending a man on death row—whose sentence the Supreme Court later overturned.
And during confirmation hearings for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said that she had a “long record” of letting child pornography offenders “off the hook,” referring to sentences that experts called mainstream. Republicans also criticized Jackson for representing Guantánamo Bay detainees, referring to her “advocacy for these terrorists.”
With Mangi’s hearings, then, senators are yet again issuing bad faith characterizations of the public interest work of a nominee who would increase the diversity of the federal bench. At this point, even if Mangi’s confirmation goes through—which is increasingly doubtful, as three Democrats have announced in recent weeks that they no longer support him—damage will have been done.
Most fundamentally, the bullying of a prominent Muslim American on the national stage tells all our Muslim friends and neighbors that they are second-class citizens. And it comes at a time when hatred is surging: reports of Islamophobia have doubled in recent months, antisemitism incidents have skyrocketed, and hate crimes in general have surged. So it is more important than ever that we take a strong stand against bias and othering of underrepresented groups.
More specifically, Mangi’s treatment sends a message to people of Muslim faith with aspirations for the federal bench: don’t bother, unless you, too, want to be branded as a terrorist-sympathizer—in front of the world and, as in Mangi’s case, your young children. The potential chilling effect on Muslim Americans vying for federal judgeships undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the judiciary.
As my colleagues have previously noted, a diverse bench leads to richer jurisprudence. That’s because judges with underrepresented personal and professional experiences bring important and relevant perspectives to the problems in front of them and push back on assumptions that a homogeneous panel might hold. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor put it, working with Justice Thurgood Marshall, a civil rights lawyer and the first Black justice, sometimes “change[d] the way [she saw] the world.”
On a more basic level, underrepresented communities are more likely to trust a diverse judiciary. This is important because courts derive their legitimacy from the public’s trust in them. “How can the public have confidence and trust in such an institution if it is segregated—if the communities it is supposed to protect are excluded from its ranks?” federal district court Judge Edward Chen once pondered.
Finally, the negative focus on Mangi’s pro bono record—especially on the heels of other hearings in which nominees have been disparaged for public interest work—casts that work in exactly the wrong light. Pro bono work should not be a political liability. To the contrary, it is the ethical obligation of every attorney to provide legal services to those who cannot afford them. And justice depends on it.
When someone loses a lawsuit, it is frequently not because their claim was meritless, but simply because they did not have a lawyer. In immigration removal hearings, for example, unaccompanied children without lawyers prevail only 15% of the time. By contrast, 73% of unaccompanied children with representation are allowed to remain in this country.
But, according to one study, in a whopping 92% of civil matters—from eviction to police brutality to discrimination—low-income Americans could not find legal representation. Pro bono practice by corporate lawyers like Mangi is crucial to filling the access to justice gap. We should be encouraging pro bono work, not giving talented young attorneys who dream of becoming judges a reason to avoid it.
Mangi’s confirmation process has been a blueprint for how not to treat a nominee for the federal bench. His hearing—and the subsequent campaign against him—has undermined our shared values of equality, inclusivity, and justice. We must do better.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Islamophobic Smear Campaign Against 'Historic' Judicial Nominee Condemned
"We urge senators to assess Mr. Mangi's nomination based on his credentials and qualifications for the job, not his religion, race, or ethnicity."
Apr 02, 2024
A coalition of over 125 rights groups on Tuesday urged the U.S. Senate to vanquish an onslaught of Islamophobic attacks and confirm Adeel Mangi, who would be the first Muslim American to serve on a federal appeals court.
As some right-wing Democrats consider joining with Republicans to block his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, the groups explained in a letter to senators that they came together to support the Oxford- and Harvard-educated attorney, "highlight Mr. Mangi's tremendous qualifications, and condemn the baseless and bigoted attacks being waged against this exceptional and historic nominee."
"Mr. Mangi is fair-minded, brilliant, and has shown throughout his impressive legal career a steadfast dedication to equal justice for all, and he will be a tremendous judge on the 3rd Circuit," the coalition wrote of the Pakistani-born partner at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee in December.
"History will remember this powerfully important moment for the future of equal justice in America."
Given his "impeccable qualifications" and the historic nature of his nomination, "an outstanding nominee like Adeel Mangi should be celebrated and embraced," the coalition argued. "The anti-Muslim tropes and unfounded assertions against him are the kinds of stereotyping that have long driven Islamophobia, which is on the rise. They also send a dangerous message to communities across the nation and potential future lawyers and judges that their path to the bench and desire to serve our nation will be obstructed by unfounded accusations based solely on their identity."
Since Israel responded to the Hamas-led October 7 attack by launching a U.S.-backed assault on the Gaza Strip that has been widely condemned as genocidal, there have been documented surges in both Islamophobic and antisemitic attacks in the United States. The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Tuesday that it received 8,061 complaints of Islamophobia nationwide last year—the most in CAIR's 30-year history—and they were largely driven by the war.
"Despite the anti-Muslim vitriol Mr. Mangi endured during his confirmation hearing, he repeatedly while under oath condemned antisemitism and terrorism with tremendous decorum and professionalism befitting the temperament sought for these important appointments to the federal bench," notes the letter. "He did so despite facing unfair, unfounded, and hostile questions, many of which were deeply offensive. Further, since his hearing, there has been a coordinated media campaign to amplify baseless attacks on his character."
"We urge senators to assess Mr. Mangi's nomination based on his credentials and qualifications for the job, not his religion, race, or ethnicity. We ask that senators denounce the Islamophobic attacks on Mr. Mangi and on all Muslims," the letter concludes. "History will remember this powerfully important moment for the future of equal justice in America."
Led by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the coalition also includes the American Federation of Teachers, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for Constitutional Rights, Disability Rights Advocates, Earthjustice, Human Rights Campaign, Muslim Advocates, NAACP, National Congress of American Indians, National Homelessness Law Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Presente.org, and Women's March.
Along with several other national organizations, there are state and local groups such as Equality California, Florida Rising, Maine Conservation Voters, Make the Road Nevada, Progress Iowa, Stand Up Alaska, and multiple arms of the NAACP and National Council of Jewish Women.
The White House maintains support for Mangi. Asked about Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) opposing him, Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday that "we are doing everything that we can to make sure that he gets through. This Senate should side with qualities that make America exceptional, which Mr. Mangi embodies, not the hateful forces that we're seeing trying to force America into the past."
President Joe Biden's nomination of Mangi was announced on the same day as that of Nicole Berner, who previously worked for Planned Parenthood and the Service Employees International Union before she was confirmed to the 4th Circuit last month.
In a Monday op-ed for The Star-Ledger, Mattan Berner-Kadish—one of Berner's sons with ex-wife Ruti Kadish—wrote: "I am so proud of her and happy that her dream has come to fruition. I am unable, however, to fully celebrate her success."
"What is happening to Adeel Mangi... is a travesty, and when compared to my mother's process, puts in stark relief how incredible this nation can be, and how incredibly cruel it can be as well," Berner-Kadish asserted. "This is a kind, sweet, intelligent man who was thoroughly qualified to be a judge in this country—a judgment confirmed by the American Bar Association, which gave him its highest rating."
"I have no qualms saying that I hope 1,000 more judges like my mother are confirmed around the country. I don't mean lesbians, I don't mean Jews. I mean lawyers who are committed to pursuing public interest careers," he stressed. "I want judges who know what a day of work means for the average American, and how their companies and bosses treat them. I want judges who fought to keep innocent people out of jail. I want judges who worked to protect women's right to control their own bodies. I want judges who did not remove themself or their children from public schools, and know what education looks like for those who attend them. I want our judges to reflect America's diversity and experience."
"For all of those reasons, Adeel Mangi should be a judge right now," Berner-Kadish added. " I don't know if I would agree with all of his rulings, and I doubt he'd be as much of a liberal jurist as I would like. But there is no doubting his qualifications, his professionalism, his fairness, or his judicial temperament. Those aren't the things keeping him off the bench. Racism and Islamophobia are."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular