Senators Sheehy and Padilla Oppose Eric Tung's Nomination for Ninth Circuit Court
July 30, 2025 | Judiciary: Senate Committee, Standing Committees - House & Senate, Congressional Hearings Compilation
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary convened on July 30, 2025, to conduct a nomination hearing for William Mercer, nominated to serve as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, and Eric Tung, nominated for a position on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Senator Steve Daines opened the session by expressing strong support for Mercer, highlighting his extensive legal background and commitment to the rule of law. Daines noted Mercer's lifelong ties to Montana, his education at the University of Montana and Harvard, and his service as U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana. He emphasized Mercer's experience in both civil and criminal cases, as well as his active involvement in the community through various nonprofit boards. Daines concluded by affirming his belief that Mercer is well-prepared for the federal judgeship and looks forward to his confirmation.
In contrast, Senator Alex Padilla raised significant concerns regarding Eric Tung's nomination. Padilla criticized Tung's conservative ideology and his association with the Federalist Society, arguing that Tung's views could undermine equality and justice. He pointed out Tung's lack of trial litigation experience, stating that an appellate judge should have a robust background in trial law. Padilla expressed that confirming Tung would be a disservice to the American public, particularly in light of the need for judges who uphold principles of equality and civil rights.
Senator Adam Schiff echoed Padilla's concerns, expressing disappointment over the White House's failure to collaborate with California senators on selecting a more mainstream nominee. Schiff highlighted Tung's controversial positions, including his opposition to labor rights and his support for fringe legal theories. He warned that Tung's nomination could threaten the rule of law and the integrity of the judiciary.
The hearing underscored the deep divisions within the Senate regarding judicial nominations, particularly concerning candidates' ideological leanings and qualifications. As the committee continues its deliberations, the outcomes of these nominations remain pivotal for the future of the federal judiciary.
Senator Steve Daines opened the session by expressing strong support for Mercer, highlighting his extensive legal background and commitment to the rule of law. Daines noted Mercer's lifelong ties to Montana, his education at the University of Montana and Harvard, and his service as U.S. Attorney for the District of Montana. He emphasized Mercer's experience in both civil and criminal cases, as well as his active involvement in the community through various nonprofit boards. Daines concluded by affirming his belief that Mercer is well-prepared for the federal judgeship and looks forward to his confirmation.
In contrast, Senator Alex Padilla raised significant concerns regarding Eric Tung's nomination. Padilla criticized Tung's conservative ideology and his association with the Federalist Society, arguing that Tung's views could undermine equality and justice. He pointed out Tung's lack of trial litigation experience, stating that an appellate judge should have a robust background in trial law. Padilla expressed that confirming Tung would be a disservice to the American public, particularly in light of the need for judges who uphold principles of equality and civil rights.
Senator Adam Schiff echoed Padilla's concerns, expressing disappointment over the White House's failure to collaborate with California senators on selecting a more mainstream nominee. Schiff highlighted Tung's controversial positions, including his opposition to labor rights and his support for fringe legal theories. He warned that Tung's nomination could threaten the rule of law and the integrity of the judiciary.
The hearing underscored the deep divisions within the Senate regarding judicial nominations, particularly concerning candidates' ideological leanings and qualifications. As the committee continues its deliberations, the outcomes of these nominations remain pivotal for the future of the federal judiciary.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting