"You Hate Christians Don't You?" - Hawley DESTROYS Biden Nominee Over Church Lockdowns

Indexado: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]Do you think it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of religious faith?

[00:00:03]Absolutely, Senator.

[00:00:04]>> Why did you argue that religious services, religious people pose a greater risk of infection than people gathered to to argue for defunding the police? I was representing my client, the mayor, and consulting epidemiologists had issued orders that she thought were going to protect public health. It was my role to defend those as um Why did you make that argument?

[00:00:23]That seems like a strange argument to me that religious people are somehow what?

[00:00:26]More infectious than than folks who have other ideological positions? I don't get it. My understanding was the nature of singing and other things epidemiologists thought could transmit COVID at a higher rate.

[00:00:35]>> put any scientific evidence on the record for it. That answer should stop every American in their tracks because this was not just a question about one policy, one church, or one courtroom fight during the pandemic. This was a question about whether religious Americans still have rights when government officials decide those rights are inconvenient. And when Senator Hawley pressed for a clear answer, what we heard was not moral clarity. We heard excuses. We heard legal distance. And what comes next shows exactly why that matters. And then one question that I ask you and I ask every nominee actually on that committee and this one is whether or not the nominee has ever ever litigated against a religious liberty claim.

[00:01:14]Usually the answer that's no. In your case, you answered yes and you listed 1 2 3 4 5 different cases over a period of years actually in which you have litigated against individuals or churches religious liberty claims. So, let's just talk about a few of those if we could. Let's start with some of your work during COVID. Case you list here, Capitol Hill Baptist Church versus Bowser. Do you remember that case?

[00:01:37]Yes, Senator. Do you remember working on that case?

[00:01:40]Yes, Senator. This was a case involving the district's lockdown policies that shut down churches in the district. Is that correct? It concerned litigation over a provision of the lockdown policies. The policies restricted all types of activity in the district.

[00:01:53]>> All types of activity in the district?

[00:01:55]Yes, Senator.

[00:01:55]>> Did it restrict mass protests in the district? Well, it restricted activities that one normally expected including work, going to stores. It also did include these provisions that were challenged concerning churches.

[00:02:06]>> So, it exempted unusual or unlikely activities. That's in the statute.

[00:02:10]That's in the ordinance. When the mayor was enacting these orders at the outset of the pandemic, I think she was trying to be as comprehensive as she could. And the order did restrict a number of daily activities of District residents.

[00:02:22]>> But it exempted mass protest. I don't believe it said anything one way or another.

[00:02:26]>> point me to the text where it exempted mass protest? I don't believe it said anything one way or another.

[00:02:30]>> it didn't because it didn't exempt mass protest, right? You know that.

[00:02:33]>> I think it was silent on the issue cuz I don't believe it was contemplated by the mayor's office.

[00:02:37]>> Ah, so you think that mass protest should be in a different category than religious observances. Is that your position? I think if there were protests on the book, then the mayor might have thought about that when she was enacting the COVID-19 restrictions, but I think she was trying to protect public health.

[00:02:53]>> think it's fine to say to religious people that they are prohibited from gathering outside wearing a mask, socially distanced. They can't do it. But if you want to come and protest at Defund the Police, if you want to support that, that's fine. You can gather en masse person to person, close up, thousands of people. That's okay. That discrimination's okay. That is your position? Senator, that is not my position. I did >> It was your position. It's what you argued.

[00:03:22]>> I did not write these orders. What I said >> defended it in court. And you just you just articulated to me what I take to be your position.

[00:03:30]What I was doing in the Capitol Hill Baptist Church was defending the mayor, my client, against a constitutional challenge to one aspect of the COVID-19 restrictions. We understood that strict scrutiny applied.

[00:03:42]>> How did that case go for you? We lost that case.

[00:03:45]>> Why?

[00:03:46]It was found that the restrictions did not meet the standard of strict scrutiny. Meaning they were unconstitutional. Meaning that did not survive strict scrutiny. And it's a matter of public record that the District of Columbia did not appeal that decision. Why? Why Why were they struck down?

[00:04:01]Excuse me, Senator?

[00:04:03]Why were the were the restrictions that you defended struck down as discriminatory? Why were they?

[00:04:09]Because they did not satisfy Why didn't they?

[00:04:13]The court concluded that there were restrictions that were not neutral of general applicability.

[00:04:18]>> Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's legalese.

[00:04:19]Why didn't they? Why didn't they on the facts? You know the facts. You were a good lawyer. Why'd you lose?

[00:04:24]We lost because applying the strict scrutiny test, the court concluded that the restrictions were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.

[00:04:32]>> Because?

[00:04:36]Senator Oh, come on, Judge. Don't make me do this. Do you want me to go through it for you? You lost because Mayor Bowser was going to mass protests herself personally with thousands of people celebrating them. By the way, which is fine. We have a We have the First Amendment in the United States. I want to be clear. That is totally fine. You want to protest? Go for it. I think that's totally fine.

[00:04:56]That wasn't the problem here. At the same time she was doing that, she was prohibiting churches, religious people, from gathering socially distanced outside wearing masks. And the District Court said, "You can't do that. That's discrimination. You can't separate people out based on their ideological beliefs or their positions. You can't do that, right?" Isn't that what Isn't that what the District Court said?

[00:05:19]The District Court said the restrictions >> did not could not survive strict scrutiny. For those reasons, right? Why are you fighting me on this? I can't figure this out. I am not fighting you, Senator. I >> So, yes, you agree. That's what the District Court said. That was what the District Court concluded.

[00:05:33]>> Do you think he they got it right? Did the District Court get it right? The District Court we did not appeal that decision. I think that District Court decision is consistent with rulings that we got from the Supreme Court clarifying the application of the religious test to COVID-19 restrictions in tandem and the Brooklyn Diocese.

[00:05:48]>> I might my time's almost expired and I know other senators want to ask questions. So, let me just very quickly here. Do you think it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of religious faith? Absolutely, Senator.

[00:05:56]>> Why did you argue that religious services, religious people pose a greater risk of infection than people gathered to to argue for defunding the police? I was representing my client, the mayor, and consulting epidemiologists had issued orders that she thought were going to protect public health. It was my role to defend those as um Why did you make that argument?

[00:06:15]This seems like a strange argument to me that religious people are somehow what more infectious than than folks who have other ideological positions? I don't get it.

[00:06:22]>> My understanding was the nature of singing and other things epidemiologists thought could transmit COVID at a higher rate.

[00:06:28]>> put any scientific evidence in the record for it.

[00:06:31]Senator, those were fast-moving cases and they weren't going to full briefing and full summary judgment with a record.

[00:06:36]That's not what the district court said.

[00:06:38]The district court said that you engaged in and your client engaged in and you defended you defended discrimination on the basis basis of religious belief, that you offered no scientific evidence for it, that you pressed these arguments over and over and over without any foundation.

[00:06:52]Frankly, I'm disappointed that you made those arguments. You can choose what arguments to make. I'm disappointed you made those arguments. I'm disappointed you persisted in defending them here today and for that reason among others, I will not support your nomination.

[00:07:04]Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What you just watched was not a misunderstanding. It was a confession wrapped [clears throat] in legal language. Senator Hawley asked the question that cuts through every excuse. If it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of religious faith, then why were churches treated like a threat while mass political protests were treated like an exception? That is the question they did not want to answer.

[00:07:24]When pressed, the answer was not the government was wrong. It was not religious Americans should never have been singled out. It was not the First Amendment applies even in a crisis.

[00:07:33]Instead, we heard distance. I was representing my client. I did not write the orders. The court applied strict scrutiny. That may sound careful in a courtroom, but to believers watching officials tolerate protests while sanctuaries were restricted, that answer is not enough. Because this was never just about COVID. It was about whose rights become negotiable when power is under pressure. Public health mattered.

[00:07:53]The pandemic was serious. But a crisis does not erase the Constitution. A virus does not give politicians the right to rank First Amendment freedoms based on which crowd they like better. If thousands can gather for politics, the government needs a serious evidence-based reason before it tells Christians they cannot gather for worship. And according to Hawley, that evidence was not there. That is why this moment is so damaging. The issue is not simply that the government lost the case. The issue is that the government fought the case. It defended the double standard. It forced a church to go to court to recover a right that should never have been treated like a permission slip. And when asked to explain it, the answer came back wrapped in procedure instead of principle.

[00:08:32]Religious freedom is not a courtesy. It is not a favor. It is not something believers borrow from the government until the next emergency. It is a God-given right protected by the Constitution. And when that right is pushed aside, the damage is spiritual.

[00:08:45]It tells Americans that faith is tolerated, not protected. It tells pastors, families, and congregations that worship can be suspended while favored politics continue. That is not neutrality. That is discrimination dressed up as emergency management. And this is why judicial nominees matter.

[00:09:01]Judges decide whether the Constitution still means what it says when the powerful want flexibility. They decide whether churches have real protection or theoretical protection. They decide whether the First Amendment is a shield for the faithful or just a slogan for hearings. So, when a nominee cannot clearly say that churches were treated wrongly, Americans should pay attention.

[00:09:21]Because the next crisis will come.

[00:09:22]Another emergency. Another excuse.

[00:09:24]Another group of officials claiming they know best. And the question will be the same. Will they protect the church or will they punish it? That is what Hawley exposed. This was not just a hearing. It was a warning. If government can silence worship while excusing politics, then religious liberty is already in danger.

[00:09:40]And if the people seeking lifetime power over our courts cannot see that clearly, then they should not be trusted with the Constitution.