On behalf of our hundreds of thousands of supporters and activists nationwide, People For the American Way opposes the nomination of David Bragdon to be a judge in the Middle District of North Carolina. His frank writings maintained on a personal blog suggest that he would use the bench to advance a far-right personal ideological agenda.
Introduction
The federal courts are essential to providing the checks and balances needed to prevent tyranny. At present, they are the only branch of the federal government carrying out this essential function. As we explained in detail in a May 30, 2025, letter to the Judiciary Committee, a president who defies court orders and threatens judges should not be allowed to name anyone to the one branch of the federal government that is checking his power.
Events since then have only strengthened our case. For instance, an extensively-documented whistleblower complaint has revealed that senior Justice Department official Emil Bove suggested in March that the administration violate court orders. President Trump subsequently nominated Bove to a seat on the Third Circuit. The administration now routinely defies the courts. In fact, a July study revealed that the Trump administration has defied one in three judges who have ruled against him.
This president is dangerously unqualified to be making lifetime appointments to the one branch of government that is providing checks and balances to his lawless actions.
Moreover, the record of this specific nominee also raises deep concerns.
David Bragdon
During the late 1990s and early 2000s, during and after college, Bragdon maintained a personal blog reflecting his positions on numerous issues that today still shape the national discussion around the role of the judiciary. Many of his views are disturbing.
For instance, he expressed a deep opposition to abortion rights. He wrote in support of legal personhood for a fetus, stating that a fetus should have the same rights under the Constitution as a child. In fact, he found no difference between having an abortion and killing an annoying neighbor:
Since it is in her pursuit of happiness to kill the fetus, she is protected by the constition [sic]. If I didn't like my new neighbor, would he be protected by the constitution if he killed him. After all, I didn't want him to come in the first place. It would be in my pursuit of happiness to kill the neighbor.[i]
Bragdon’s writing reflected a dismissive judgment against women seeking abortion care. After listing the reasons that often lead someone to have an abortion, he wrote:
Not having sex before marriage would solve most of these problems liste[d]. Birth control could solve all of them. Why are we trying to give women a choice when they already have one. Should an inocent [sic] child suffer for a woman's wrong decision[?] Should our government make the child pay the consequences for the woman's poor judgment[?] The woman knew the risk when she chose not to use birth control and thus must face the consequenses [sic]. Since a choice is already provided, why do women need another one …?[ii]
In a post supporting expanded use of capital punishment, Bragdon was dismissive about the possibility of executing an innocent person:
We risk dying in automobile accidents for the convenience of using a car. This practice is considered acceptable. Risking the possibility that someone might be wrongly executed is worth it to save the lives of thousands of innocent people who might be the next victims of murder.[iii]
Bragdon also wrote that “the freedom that our founding fathers fought for is fading.” In addition to condemning government for “interfering with the economy,” he complained that “[e]quality is beginning to replace liberty as the primary principle” of our country.[iv]
Although these writings were long ago, they are relevant to the current nomination. Judges today are still ruling on issues relating to abortion rights, capital punishment, the role of government, and fundamental questions of equality and liberty.
More directly, though, Bragdon’s website expressed his views on judges. It shows that going back even before law school, he shared the agenda of those most heavily involved in driving the courts far to the right on issues such as these.
Via a link labelled “conservative judicial monitoring site,” Bragdon invited his readers to visit the Free Congress Foundation’s “Judicial Selection Monitoring Project.” The Free Congress Foundation was founded by influential far-right leader Paul Weyrich.[v] And its website invited organizations to join the “Coalition for Judicial Restraint,” a who’s-who of far-right organizations of the late 1990s and early 2000s such as the Eagle Forum, the Family Research Council, WallBuilders, and the Traditional Values Coalition.[vi]
Bragdon’s record since becoming a lawyer does not indicate that he has repudiated the views he once freely expressed. Indeed, it seems more likely that those views played a role in his selection for this nomination. His Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire acknowledges that he was a member of the Federalist Society “intermittently” between 2003 and 2017, and consistently since 2023.
As noted above, our position is that senators should not confirm any judicial nominee of President Trump. That includes David Bragdon.
[i] “Abortion,” https://web.archive.org/web/20000517061426/http:/www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/ Lobby/5258/abortion.html.
[ii] Id.
[iii] https://web.archive.org/web/19991011234329/http:/www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/5258/ deathsch2.htm.
[iv] “David Bragdon’s Radical,” https://web.archive.org/web/19991012035125/http:/www.geocities.com/ capitolHill/Lobby/5258/index.html.
[v] “’I Don't Want Everybody to Vote' – The Roots of GOP Voter Suppression,” People For the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Nov. 5, 2012, https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/post/i-dont-want-everybody-to-vote-the-roots-of-gop-voter-suppression.
[vi] https://web.archive.org/web/20010513013305/http:/www.4judicialrestraint.org/cjr/about.htm.
