Trump's 8th Circuit Nominee Criticizes ABA Interviewer After 'Not Qualified' Rating
Husch Blackwell's Steve Grasz said during a Senate hearing that during an interview with the ABA, he was repeatedly asked about personal beliefs.
November 01, 2017 at 02:58 PM
4 minute read
Steve Grasz, President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, pushed back on the American Bar Association's review process in a Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday.
The ABA recently rated Grasz, a senior counsel at Husch Blackwell in Omaha and a former Nebraska chief deputy attorney general, as not qualified for the position. It was the first time the ABA, which routinely rates federal judicial nominees, had publicly given such a rating for a circuit court nominee since 2006. Republican senators chalked the rating up to partisanship in Wednesday's hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Grasz said during the hearing that while he respected the ABA's process, his experience with the review and interview process was not professional.
“I would tell you that the initial interview was conducted professionally and respectfully,” Grasz told Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. “The follow-up interview was a completely different experience.”
The ABA released a statement Monday from Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease partner Pamela Bresnahan, who chairs the standing committee on the federal judiciary, that outlined the organization's process and reasoning for the rating. The group said Grasz received the rating because it appeared his personal biases rendered him unable to make fair decisions as a judge, and that there are concerns about his temperament.
The statement said after an initial evaluator, University of Arkansas professor Cynthia Nance, recommended Grasz be rated “not qualified,” a second evaluator conducted a supplemental evaluation. That evaluation included an interview with Grasz as well as lawyers and judges who know him. The second evaluator was Fenwick & West partner Laurence Pulgram, of San Francisco, according to the statement.
Pulgram referred questions to Bresnahan, who said in an email she will testify on the ABA's evaluation of Grasz before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 15.
“Until then, I don't believe it is valuable to respond to one aspect of Mr. Grasz' testimony,” Bresnahan said in an email. “Suffice it to say, the ABA Standing Committee doesn't necessarily agree with Mr. Grasz, but the Committee believes it will be more valuable all around to have a more fulsome discussion about Mr. Grasz' nomination on the 15th.”
A Senate Judiciary spokesman did not reply to a request for comment on the hearing. The ABA also issued a written statement noting that the organization “does not take into consideration a nominee's philosophy, political affiliation or ideology.”
“In the case of Leonard Steven Grasz, for example, committee members interviewed 207 lawyers, judges and others who have worked with Mr. Grasz in various capacities, some for decades,” the statement said.
During the hearing, Grasz did not name Pulgram, but said in response to a question from Sen. John Kennedy, R-Louisiana, that in his second ABA interview, it “was made very clear” the interviewer did not like that he is pro-life. Later, Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, asked Grasz if the ABA evaluators asked about his personal opinions. Grasz replied that during the second interview, he was “asked repeatedly” for his “personal opinions on social issues including abortion” and that it “seemed to be a topic of great interest to the reviewer.”
Grasz also said that during the second interview, the interviewer “repeatedly used, in a negative connotation, the phrase 'you people.'”
“And at one point I stopped him, and I said 'Sir, who do you mean by you people?' And he said 'conservatives and Republicans,'” Grasz said.
Grasz also said the evaluator asked where his children went to school.
“I was kind of surprised at that question,” he said. Flake asked if Grasz could think of any reason the ABA would want to know that. Grasz said no.
Grasz's children attend a Lutheran school, Flake noted.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Absurd Costs'?: Visa Faces Antitrust Class-Action Surge Following DOJ Complaint
3 minute read'Systemic and Pervasive'?: DiCello Levitt Alleges WWE Child Sexual Abuse Scandal
3 minute readThe 2024 NLJ Awards: Professional Excellence—Appellate Hot List
4th Circuit Revives Workplace Retaliation Lawsuit Against Biden's HHS Secretary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250