On behalf of our hundreds of thousands of supporters and activists nationwide, People For the American Way opposes the nomination of William Crain to be a judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana. He has strongly implied that his personal beliefs are the foundation of how he rules as a judge, which makes him unfit for a lifetime appointment to the bench.
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[i], 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.[ii] 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.[iii]
Nationwide concern over the Trump administration’s deceptive filings and court defiance continues to grow. The administration even risks losing the “presumption of regularity,” in which judges presume that the federal government and its lawyers are telling the truth and acting in good faith.[iv] Indeed, an October 2025 report revealed dozens of instances of judges expressing distrust in the government’s representations, as well as growing concerns within the federal bench about noncompliance with judicial orders.[v]
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.
William Crain
William Crain was a sitting state appeals court judge when he was elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 2019. The campaign he ran to win that election strongly suggested that his personal ideology determined his judicial decisions and would continue to do so.
His campaign ads are important because they provide critical insight into how he approaches cases. They are not characterizations by opponents or by outside observers. To the contrary, they are his own words, chosen with great care for one purpose: to explain to those charged with filling a judicial vacancy why they should place him on the court.
One of Crain’s ads said voters should place him on the Supreme Court because he was a “pro life, pro Second Amendment, never-legislate-from-the-bench jurist.”
He sent a clear message that litigants arguing for abortion rights would lose, with the consequent devastating impact on women’s health and freedom.
Nor was this his only way in which Crain suggested he would rule based on his personal beliefs. In fact, one of his ads said people should vote for him because he was “the only proven conservative to protect our beliefs.”
Judges are not supposed to protect “beliefs.” It is hard to imagine a federal judicial nominee assuring members of the Judiciary Committee that they should confirm him so that he could “protect our beliefs.”
Had Justice Crain ruled in favor of abortion rights after winning the election, the impression he created might have been dispelled. But that didn’t happen.
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision ending the constitutional right to abortion, Crain had the issue of abortion before him. Louisiana had a “trigger” law to reinstate its old abortion restrictions in the event Roe v. Wade was overturned. Individuals sued to have the trigger law struck down, and a trial court enjoined its enforcement pending litigation. The state appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which dismissed rather than consider the governor’s motion to stay the injunction. That allowed providers to continue to provide abortion care as the lawsuit continued.
Justice Crain dissented. He wrote that the justices should consider the motion to stay the injunction. He questioned the plaintiff clinic’s assertion of irreparable harm should the trigger law be enforced.
As a justice, Crain has ruled against the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.[vi] He has ruled against citizens seeking restitution for environmental harms caused by businesses.[vii] While he has given legal reasons for his positions, the cloud he created with such claims as being “tough on crime” or ”the only proven conservative to protect our beliefs” raises questions about his fairness as a jurist. He has undermined the confidence that all litigants in a healthy legal system should have that every judge will consider their case fairly, under the law, regardless of personal feelings and policy preferences.
Crain should not be confirmed.
[i] https://www.peoplefor.org/sites/default/files/downloads/2025-06/Hermandorfer_and_4_MO_noms-opposition_letter.pdf.
[ii] “Justice Dept. Leader Suggested Violating Court Orders, Whistle-Blower Says,” New York Times, June 24, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/justice-department-emil-bove-trump-deportations-reuveni.html.
[iii] “Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him,” Washington Post, July 21, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges.
[iv] See, e.g., David French, “How a Trump Judge Exposed the Trump Con,” New York Times, Oct. 12, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/12/opinion/trump-judge-immergut-portland-national-guard.html; “Judges Openly Doubt Government as Justice Dept. Misleads and Dodges Orders,” New York Times, Aug. 4, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/04/us/politics/trump-justice-department-judges-courts.html.
[v] “"The ‘Presumption of Regularity’ in Trump Administration Litigation,” Just Security, updated Oct. 15, 2025, https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-trump-administration-litigation.
[vi] E.g., State v. Allen, 348 So. 3d 1274 (La. 2022).
[vii] E.g., State ex rel. Tureau v. BEPCO, L.P., 351 So. 3d 297 (La. 2022).
