President Donald Trump’s nominees to be solicitor general and assistant attorney general would not commit to senators Wednesday that Trump should never defy court orders, further raising fears among Democrats that Trump officials could refuse to follow court rulings against the administration—though there is not yet any evidence of them doing so.
Attorney Dean John Sauer (right) appears alongside President Donald Trump as he speaks to the media ... [+]
Solicitor general nominee Dean John Sauer—who would argue the administration’s cases before the Supreme Court—and assistant attorney general nominee Aaron Reitz were asked during their Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday about whether they believe elected officials should be allowed to defy a court order.
Sauer, who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney, said, “Generally, if there is a direct court order” that binds a public official, “they should follow it,” adding he can “imagine hypotheticals in extreme cases” where rulings shouldn’t be followed—pointing to Supreme Court rulings upholding Japanese internment camps and finding enslaved people weren’t U.S. citizens.
When Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., noted the internment camp ruling was “followed for years” despite being “bad,” Sauer responded, “I just wonder whether some historians might think we’d be better off if it hadn’t been followed.”
Reitz was also asked about the possibility of public officials defying court orders, telling Durbin, “It would be too case-specific for me to make a blanket statement about that.”
The nominee was asked about the possibility of defying court orders after he wrote on X in 2020 about a ruling blocking Texas from closing abortion clinics: “Looking for some Andrew Jackson-level leadership on this one,” adding the judge “has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.”
In a later exchange with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Booker told Reitz he hoped the nominee could “understand” why his “failure to … resolutely state your commitment to abide by court orders” is “troubling” to Democratic senators, to which Reitz responded, “I understand that is a perspective that members of this body may have.”
Reitz and Sauer are expected to be confirmed by the full Senate, given the chamber’s GOP majority, though it’s still unclear when they could be confirmed.
Prior to his nomination as solicitor general, Sauer gained attention when he argued on Trump’s behalf in the president’s lawsuit seeking immunity from criminal charges, which resulted in the Supreme Court shielding him from prosecution based on his official acts in office. Sauer made headlines for suggesting during multiple court hearings in that case that he believed a president should not face prosecution even in extreme cases like assassinating a political rival, unless they were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., asked Sauer about those comments Wednesday, questioning whether that line of argument meant Sauer would defend Trump in court if the president were to order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival. Sauer did not deny Schiff’s hypothetical, saying only that it is “so outlandish, I don’t know if I’m positioned to address it” but he would give the “same response” that he did in the immunity case. “OK, so the same response is that you would evidently defend him from prosecution on that,” Schiff, a frequent Trump critic, responded.
Reitz, who will be one of the top leaders at the Justice Department if confirmed, previously served as chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. He also worked for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican who frequently challenged the Biden administration in court.
Sauer served as the solicitor general in Missouri before moving to private practice, where he represented Trump. The attorney is one of several of Trump’s personal attorneys who have now landed roles in his administration, and Sauer represented the now-president in one of writer E. Jean Carroll’s civil defamation cases against Trump in addition to the immunity dispute.
Sauer and Reitz’s comments come as Trump allies have started increasingly pushing back on negative rulings blocking Trump administration policies. Numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging the administration’s actions in the weeks since Trump’s inauguration, resulting in temporary rulings in some cases that have paused policies while the litigation plays out. Those rulings have sparked anger among Trump’s allies, who called for judges’ impeachment and made comments lashing out against Trump’s actions being constrained by the judiciary. “Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power,” Vice President JD Vance claimed on X in early February, while billionaire Elon Musk pinned a post Tuesday to the top of his X profile that says, “If ANY judge ANYWHERE can block EVERY Presidential order EVERYWHERE, we do NOT have democracy, we have TYRANNY of the JUDICIARY.” Democrats and legal experts have attacked those comments and suggested it could foreshadow the Trump administration defying court rulings against it. There is so far no evidence of that happening, with the administration explicitly saying it is following orders in rulings it doesn’t like—though judges have had to enforce orders against the government regarding releasing foreign aid and other funding, after plaintiffs in those cases argued the administration hadn’t fully unfrozen its pauses on spending as required.