In a tense hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator John Kennedy aggressively pressed a federal judicial nominee over the pace of her decisions, saying that her statistics placed her among the least productive judges in the country. The exchange highlighted the high stakes of judicial promotions and the intense scrutiny nominees face regarding both their past performance and readiness for elevated service..

At the outset of the hearing, Senator Kennedy directed pointed remarks at the nominee. “You are probably the least productive member of your District Court, isn’t that right?” he asked. He then cited numbers: “You have 125 motions in which you’ve declined to decide. That’s more than any other district judge in the entire Seventh Circuit— in fact you rank seventh highest nationally.” The nominee responded that she was “not familiar with those statistics.” He pressed further: “You haven’t looked? I did look … you ranked the seventh worst in the country in terms of making decisions.”

The nominee said that she had looked at some numbers in preparation for the hearing but had not compared herself to others in her circuit or nationwide. She said: “I have not in those terms … I don’t view it that way.” But Senator Kennedy pressed on, pointing out that among newly confirmed district judges she ranked number three for motions pending more than six months. “Of all the district court judges in the Seventh Circuit you are the one that ought to be promoted based on this record?” he asked. The nominee reiterated that she stood by her record and stressed the quality of her decision-making, rather than purely speed. She said: “When I look at the quality of my decision-making … I stand by my record.”

Senator Kennedy then pivoted to the nominee’s prior work in private practice, highlighting a pro-bono brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He noted the nominee had signed a brief stating that “assault weapons may be banned because they’re extraordinarily dangerous and are not appropriate for legitimate self-defense purposes.” He asked: “Tell me what you meant by ‘assault weapons’?” The nominee clarified she had been “local counsel” and did not write the brief; she acknowledged signing it but said she did not remember the definition of “assault weapons” used in the ordinance at issue, explaining it was not a specialized area of her practice. Senator Kennedy pressed that by signing the brief she had effectively endorsed its assertions, yet admitted she could not now define the term.

Returning to the core issue of her record, Senator Kennedy asked: “Help me understand why you have such an abysmal record in moving cases. It costs a lot of money to litigate and people are paying lawyers and time is money.” He reiterated that she ranked the worst of her peers in case-movement metrics and stated: “Why do you think you deserve to be promoted with that record?” The nominee again replied that she would not view her record as “abysmal,” and emphasized that when she came onto the bench she faced a backlog and challenging circumstances—conditions she said applied to many new judges. She stated: “I stand by my record … I issue decisions regularly … I just came on at a very difficult time where there was a backlog in the courts.”

Senator Kennedy, visibly unconvinced, challenged the expectation that all newly confirmed judges faced identical burdens, and asked why the nominee’s performance nonetheless lagged that of nearly all others. He contrasted the nominee with her peers, saying they “all had the same problems with COVID” but her ranking placed her among the worst in dealing with motions pending. The nominee reiterated the importance of collegiality, pointing to discussions among judges about reassignments and caseload pressures. Yet the challenger countered: “Of all the district judges … you’re the one being asked for promotion?”

The hearing captured a broader moment in the judiciary appointment process, demonstrating how senators may challenge nominees not only on legal judgments or ideology, but also on administrative efficiency and metrics of productivity. The nominee defended her record on the grounds of quality and context; the senator insisted that the data and comparisons demanded accounting.

By the close of his questioning, Senator Kennedy directly asked: “You all came on at the same time … you all had the same problems … you’re the third worst … you think you deserve to be promoted?” The nominee responded: “I stand by my record.” The exchange ended with the committee moving to other members.

As the Senate deliberates whether to advance the nominee’s confirmation, this hearing will likely remain a focal point in the decision. Metrics of delayed motions and undetermined cases have become a new line of scrutiny for judicial nominees, and this hearing illustrates how such data can feature in confirmation fights.

For the nominee, the emphasis will fall on her defense that quality must carry weight alongside speed, and that early-career challenges—including backlogs and caseload reassignments—explain much of the delay. For supporters, the ability to articulate a clear plan for clearing pending matters and improving throughput may be essential. Meanwhile, for skeptics like Senator Kennedy, the headline number — “seventh highest nationally” in delayed motions — provides a stark talking point.