September 29, 2026
Dear Senator,
The undersigned 41 organizations believe that our federal judiciary must be fair, independent, and staffed with jurists who have a demonstrated commitment to advancing the rights of all people, including the rights of working people and consumers.
We write with great concern about the nation’s affordability crisis, as far too many American families cannot afford the true cost of living.1 The current administration is exacerbating this economic emergency. As it prioritizes billionaires over the rest of us, its economic policies — including reckless tariffs that raised prices on everyday goods — have helped to make life less affordable for many Americans.
But affordability isn’t just an economic issue — it’s also a legal one. Today, decisions issued by federal courts across the country are having a direct impact on the cost of living and the ability of all people to afford groceries, rent, transportation, child care, health care, education, energy, and other necessities. The powerful role that our federal courts play in influencing affordability makes it critically important that the judges serving on those courts are committed to workers’ rights, consumer rights, and a strong democracy in which all people — and their families — can thrive.
For far too long, federal judges have disproportionately possessed very narrow legal experiences as either corporate attorneys or government prosecutors. The relatively small number of federal judges who have backgrounds in economic justice or organized labor has contributed to a judiciary where the scales are tipped against working people and their families, and where consumer access to the courts has been eroded. And it’s only getting worse.
The past year has seen the nomination of extreme judicial nominees who are loyal to an anti-consumer, anti-worker agenda. This includes Andrew Davis, confirmed in April to the Western District of Texas, who previously argued that an Austin city ordinance requiring employers to provide paid sick leave to their employees was unconstitutional.2 In the Northern District of Alabama, the Senate confirmed Edmund LaCour, who defended Alabama’s effort to block Birmingham from raising its minimum wage — thus undermining the ability of working families to earn a living wage.3 Anna St. John, who now serves on the Eastern District of Louisiana and has been nominated for elevation to the Fifth Circuit, testified against banning forced arbitration in cases involving sexual assault and harassment, siding with a system that silences victims and shields corporations from accountability.4 Sixth Circuit Judge Whitney Hermandorfer, whose nomination last year replaced President Joe Biden’s nomination of a highly qualified labor lawyer, has submitted amicus briefs in many cases that undermine fair labor practices and the right of workers to unionize.5 There are numerous other troubling examples.6
At the same time, extremist judges already on the bench are issuing decisions that favor the rich and corporations, and in doing so they are making it harder for those who aren’t wealthy to have meaningful workplace protections and to pay the bills. These judges have taken away rights Congress wrote into labor laws, favored narrow interpretations of consumer protection laws, and imposed limits on federal agencies’ ability to regulate industries that exercise so much power over us. They have issued decisions that make it harder for working people and consumers to bring cases. Instead of applying laws designed to protect the American people, they shield large corporations from accountability, weaken enforcement of affordability-related protections, and make it more difficult for everyday Americans to find justice in court.
The anti-consumer and anti-worker takeover of the courts has had dire consequences for communities across the country. These judges and justices are leaving American families, workers, and consumers weaker and less protected from corporate wrongdoing and the whims of an authoritarian ruler. For example, thanks to the appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court in 2018 was able to reverse precedent in order to starve public sector unions of resources.7 When Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court, he joined with Justice Gorsuch in 2020 to rule that the president has the power to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, no matter what Congress says.8 The following year, with the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the Court, the newly strengthened 6-3 supermajority invalidated a 45-year-old California regulation giving unions access to farm property in order to organize farmworkers.9
Extremist lower court appointees have also been issuing harmful, pro-corporate decisions. In 2021, for example, Judge John Bush of the Sixth Circuit wrote an opinion, joined by Judge Amul Thapar, ruling that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not have authority to order an important COVID-related moratorium on evictions.10 In 2024, Judge Sean Jordan of the Eastern District of Texas invalidated a Biden-era Department of Labor rule that aimed to expand overtime pay eligibility for certain salaried employees.11 In 2025, another extremist judge in Texas struck down a rule protecting consumers from excessive credit card late fees — instead handing a win to big banks and corporations.12 Just this year, Judges Daniel Bress and Bridget Bade of the Ninth Circuit vacated a district court injunction against the current administration’s executive order taking collective bargaining away from hundreds of thousands of federal employees.13 Unfortunately, the list goes on — and on.
Too many federal judges, and certainly those supported by organizations such as the Federalist Society, regularly favor powerful interests and their preferred policy outcomes. The difference between how corporations and how people are treated impacts the functioning of our democracy and society, and it requires focused attention on who is being appointed to our federal courts.
Today the federal bench is largely filled with corporate attorneys, former prosecutors, and lawyers from elite law schools and ideological networks. Many jurists serving today have been insulated from experiencing the affordability crisis firsthand and knowing the difficult economic realities that so many American families face. That’s why our courts need judges from diverse backgrounds — including those from different law schools, from various legal upbringings, and from demographically diverse communities.
All senators who claim to be working to solve the affordability crisis must take seriously their role in confirming judges to the federal judiciary, which has been complicit in the assault on the rights of working people and their ability to pay for life’s necessities. The Senate must not confirm more lifetime judicial nominees who have a record of hostility to consumers and workers — and who have seemingly pledged their loyalty to a president intent on helping corporations over his constituents.
Federal judges confirmed today will shape the rules of our economy for decades to come. We urge you to only approve judicial nominees who understand what is at stake for working families — and who are willing to uphold the laws that protect them. Failure to take your advice and consent responsibility seriously will only worsen the nation’s affordability crisis, deepen the imbalance between corporations and everyday Americans, and further weaken our democracy.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
People For the American Way
National Women's Law Center
AFL-CIO
Alliance for Justice
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Friends Service Committee
Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund
Center for Justice & Democracy
Clearinghouse on Women's Issues
Coalition on Human Needs
Communications Workers of America (CWA)
Court Accountability Action
Demand Justice
Democratic Messaging Project
Equality California
Faithful Voter Project
Faiths for Safe Water
Feminist Majority
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Groundwork Action
Indivisible
JustLeadershipUSA
League of Conservation Voters
Legal Momentum, the Women's Legal Defense & Education Fund
MOVI, Money Out Voters In
National Association of Consumer Advocates
National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development (National CAPACD) National Consumers League
National Education Association
National Organization for Women
Oasis Legal Services
Open Markets Institute
Oregon Consumer Justice
Oregon Consumer League
Public Good Law Center
Reproductive Freedom for All
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Silver State Equality
Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice
Voices for Progress
1. “The American Affordability Tracker,” Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/data-tools/american-affordability-tracker
2. Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. City of Austin, 565 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. App. 2018).
3. Lewis v. Governor of Alabama, No. 17-11009 (11th Cir. 2019).
4. Testimony of Anna St. John, President, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute to H. Comm. On Jud, Silenced: How Forced Arbitration Keeps Victims of Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment in the Shadows, Hearing Before the H. Comm. On Jud., 117th Cong. (Nov. 16, 2021).
https://www.congress.gov/117/meeting/house/114227/witnesses/HHRG-117-JU00-Wstate-StJohnA-20211116.pdf.
5. See, e.g.: Brief for the State of Tennessee and Twenty Other States as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, U.S. No. 23-367, 602 U.S. 339 (2024). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-367/301753/20240228152735646_23-367%20Amicus%20BOM%20TN%20PDFA.pdf.
6. See, e.g.: Courts and Affordability: By Issue and Courts and Affordability.
7. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. 878 (2018).
8. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020). The Court’s expanded 6-3 far-right majority subsequently expanded this ruling to eliminate the independence of other federal agencies in Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. ___ (2026).
9. Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021).
10. Tiger Lily, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 5 F.4th 706 (6th Cir. 2021).
11. State of Texas v. United States Dep't of Labor, No. 4:24-CV-499-SDJ, 2024 WL 4806268 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2024).
12. Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 4:24-cv-00213 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2025).
13. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees, AFL-CIO v. Trump, No. 25-4014 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2026).
