On behalf of our hundreds of thousands of supporters and activists nationwide, People For the American Way opposes the elevation of Anna St. John to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
As explained in more detail in the second half of this letter, we do not support confirming any judicial nominees of Donald Trump. He is dangerously unqualified to be making lifetime appointments to the one branch of government that is in a position to provide checks and balances to his lawless actions.
But first, this letter focuses on one of those nominees: Anna St. John
Anna St. John
St. John appeared before the committee only a few months ago, when she was nominated to her current district court position. Her responses to senators’ questions then made clear that she should not have been confirmed. Now that she is being considered for elevation to an even more powerful lifetime judgeship on the Fifth Circuit, the content of those responses becomes even more important.
Like other Trump judicial nominees, St. John refused to frankly acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election. She repeated the same canned response we have heard from others: that Biden was “certified” the winner of the electoral vote. This practiced evasion does not bode well for her independence from Donald Trump.
In written questions for the record, Sen. Coons asked St. John if anyone had in any way suggested that she avoid directly answering questions about who won the 2020 election. Tellingly, she did not actually answer this simple and direct yes-or-no question. Instead, she referred the senator to her answer to a different question about the 2020 election, noting that other Trump nominees had used the same wording.[i]
St. John engaged in another deflection about the 2020 election in response to a question from Ranking Member Durbin. He asked her if then-Vice President Pence had done the right thing by certifying the results of the election. She refused to answer the question.[ii]
Her fealty to Donald Trump came though in other ways, as well. For instance, Sen. Durbin asked her if she agreed with President Trump’s comment that judges whose decisions he disagrees with are “USA HATING JUDGES” and “MONSTERS” who “…SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY…”
It would not at all be difficult for a nominee with integrity and independence to address this accusation about the judiciary. Yet St. John refused to answer the senator’s question. She made clear that it was because Trump himself had made the accusation, claiming that “it would be inappropriate for me, as a judicial nominee, to comment on the President’s political views and commentary.”[iii]
St. John’s record before her brief time on the bench also merits opposition to her Fifth Circuit nomination.
In 2021, St. John testified before Congress against the Ending Forced Arbitration for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Act. Often, large corporations force an agreement in advance to arbitrate future disputes on employees as a condition of hiring, and the individual has no bargaining power to say no. The same occurs in consumer transactions.
With private arbitration, the employee surrenders her right to a courtroom with a neutral judge and a wide variety of substantive and procedural protections for all parties. Instead, the employer that is accused of wrongdoing selects a private arbitrator – one whose living may depend on getting cases from corporate employers. The protections of the court system, including a jury, are cast aside.
The law St. John opposed voided mandatory arbitration agreements in instances of sexual assault and sexual harassment. In other words, it guaranteed victims a right to go to court if they so choose.
St. John condemned the bill and said:
A public proceeding with the attendant media coverage may benefit high-profile, high-earning women, but the same is not true for countless women in more routine situations who also experience such harm.[iv]
This supposition ignores the power imbalance that a large corporate employer has over those seeking work, including those who are not “high-profile, high-earning women.” No person should ever be forced to surrender her access to all the legal rights and remedies for sexual assault or harassment as a condition of employment.
She also suggested that forcing victims of sexual assault and harassment into arbitration could benefit other people:
Because arbitration is a faster and less expensive way of resolving disputes, companies may have more funds to devote to employee benefits or to lowering costs for consumers.[v]
Her testimony did not provide any data showing that companies actually do in fact increase employee benefits or lower consumer costs with the money saved by avoiding accountability through the courts. But at a more fundamental level, it is disturbing that someone in line for a judgeship – someone who will be tasked with balancing the equities in cases before her – would consider the possibility of marginally lower consumer costs or possibly higher employee benefits as a factor to weigh against the welfare of women who are victims of sexual assault or harassment.
Fortunately, St. John’s effort to abet wrongdoing by those holding power failed, and the bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support.[vi]
But it is not the only time St. John has used the courts to help the powerful harm others. She is president of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI). In the guise of protecting consumers and shareholders from class action settlements it deems unfair or abusive, HLLI works to undermine the ability of people to hold powerful companies accountable. Class actions are often the only way to hold corporate wrongdoers meaningfully accountable when they harm large numbers of individuals. This is especially true when the harm to each individual is relatively small, such that litigation outside of a class action context would cost more than the anticipated recovery.
She has also been part of the far-right effort to combat LGBTQ+ equality. For instance, she filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of 303 Creative v. Elenis. She argued that anti-equality business owners have a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ customers, even when civil rights laws prevent that kind of discrimination.
She also filed an amicus brief in Little v. Hecox, supporting bans against trans women and girls in school sports. Her brief essentially denied the existence of trans women, long among the most marginalized members of society:
When male athletes began demanding to participate in women’s sports by “identifying” themselves as such …”[vii]
Someone so dismissive and contemptuous of trans people should not be given a lifetime position on a federal appeals court that will decide fundamental issues affecting trans people’s lives.
St. John would also augment the ability of the most powerful political figures in the nation to intimidate people from criticizing them. In 2024, she urged the Supreme Court to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, the seminal case protecting freedom of the press.[viii] That would make it much easier for public figures to use the threats of lawsuits to intimidate people from criticizing them. Indeed, even before he was elected in 2016, Trump threatened that he wanted to “open up” our nation's libel laws. And he is notorious for his frivolous lawsuits against his critics intended to weaken First Amendment protections[ix], including lawsuits against the New York Times[x] and the BBC.[xi]
We urge senators to oppose confirming Anna St. John to a lifetime position as a judge on the Fifth Circuit.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Judicial Nominees of a President Who Defies the Courts and Expects Absolute Loyalty From His Nominees
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.
President Trump does not share that vision of the courts. He expects the judges he nominates to show him personal loyalty and always rule in his favor.
This has been clear for a long time. However, on May 10, Trump himself made it impossible to pretend otherwise. In a Truth Social post, he wrote this about Supreme Court justices:
[I]t’s really OK for them to be loyal to the person that appointed them to 'almost' the highest position in the land, that is, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.[xii]
In March, he condemned the Court for striking down his tariffs even though he supported them:
The Court knew where I stood, how badly I wanted this Victory for our Country, and instead decided to, potentially, give away Trillions of Dollars to Countries and Companies who have been taking advantage of the United States for decades.[xiii]
He then went on to condemn the independence of justices who have ruled against him:
They openly disrespect the Presidents who nominate them to the highest position in the Land, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and go out of their way, with bad and wrongful rulings and intentions, to prove how "honest," "independent," and "legitimate" they are.[xiv]
No president who is looking for unfettered loyalty from his judicial nominations can be allowed to put more judges on the bench at any level.
This development does not come out of the blue. Soon after returning to office, Trump began defying court orders and threatening judges who rule against him. In a May 30, 2025, letter to the Judiciary Committee, we explained that a president who does this should not be allowed to name anyone to the one branch of the federal government that is checking his power.[xv]
Events since then have only strengthened our case. For instance, an extensively-documented whistleblower complaint revealed that senior Justice Department official Emil Bove suggested in March that the administration violate court orders.[xvi] President Trump subsequently nominated Bove to a seat on the Third Circuit, to which he was confirmed. The administration now routinely defies the courts. In fact, a July study revealed that the Trump administration had defied one in three judges who had ruled against him.[xvii]
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.[xviii] 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.[xix]
And in November 2025, a sitting federal judge nominated by President Reagan resigned from his lifetime position in order to speak frankly and in depth about Trump’s threat to the rule of law. Mark L. Wolf wrote:
I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment. This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable.[xx]
Later that same month, President Trump even called for the execution of members of Congress for stating the undisputed legal fact that members of the military may not follow unlawful orders.[xxi]
In January 2026 alone, the Trump administration violated nearly 100 court orders relating to ICE’s reign of terror in the Minneapolis area that led to brutal killings of American citizens Alex Pretti and Renee Good. These orders were issued to protect the people of Minnesota from unlawful abuses of power by ICE. On January 28, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz released a list of those violated orders.[xxii] He wrote:
[It] identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted.
This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law.[xxiii]
At least 35 times between August 2025 and February 2026, federal district court or magistrate judges in California, Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, West Virginia and Puerto Rico ordered the administration to explain why it should not be punished for violating court orders.[xxiv]
This is a unique moment of crisis for our nation. Fortunately, the framers of our Constitution anticipated a moment such as this. Through the confirmation process, they gave the Senate the power and the responsibility to prevent a president such as this from sabotaging the independence of our courts.
The Senate should not confirm any judicial nominee of President Trump’s at any level.
[i] Anna St. John district court nomination, Questions For the Record (QFRs), https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/2026-02-04_qfr-responses_stjohnpdf, p. 24.
[ii] QFRs at 2.
[iii] QFRs at 5.
[iv] Hearing transcript, “Silenced: How Forced Arbitration Keeps Victims of Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment in the Shadows,” House Judiciary Committee, Serial No. 117-46, Nov. 16, 2021, Testimony of Anna St. John, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg46552/pdf/CHRG-117hhrg46552.pdf, p. 31.
[v] Hearing transcript at 23.
[vi] Public Law No: 117-90 (March 3, 2022).
[vii] Amicus brief of six high school athletes in support of petitioner in Little v. Hecox, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-38/375297/20250919152036410_24-38%20and%2024-43%20Amici%20Brief.pdf, p. 6.
[viii] “Supreme Court Should Reexamine New York Times v. Sullivan,” The American Spectator, Jan. 20, 2024, https://spectator.org/supreme-court-reexamining-new-york-times-v-sullivan-in-an-age-of-media-distrust.
[ix] E.g., “Paramount’s Trump Lawsuit Settlement: Curtain Call for the First Amendment?” Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/paramounts-trump-lawsuit-settlement-curtain-call-for-the-first-amendment.
[x] “Trump Refiles His $15 Billion Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times,” The New York Times, Oct. 17, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/17/business/media/trump-lawsuit-new-york-times.html.
[xi] “Trump sues BBC for $10 billion, accusing it of defamation over Jan. 6 speech edit ,” National Public Radio, Dec. 16, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/12/16/nx-s1-5645649/trump-sues-bbc.
[xii] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116552659719497289.
[xiii] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116236850873003597.
[xiv] Id.
[xv] https://www.peoplefor.org/sites/default/files/downloads/2025-06/Hermandorfer_and_4_MO_noms-opposition_letter.pdf.
[xvi] “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.
[xvii] “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.
[xviii] 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.
[xix] “"The ‘Presumption of Regularity’ in Trump Administration Litigation,” Just Security, updated Oct. 15, 2025, https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-trump-administration-litigation.
[xx] “Why I Am Resigning,” Judge Mark L. Wolf, The Atlantic, Nov, 9, 2025, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/federal-judge-resignation-trump/684845.
[xxi] “Trump says Democrats’ message to military is ‘seditious behavior’ punishable by death,” Associated Press, Nov. 20, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-military-traitors-sedition-illegal-orders-c5fc3c5bd2fbc6b1204550e4203c24b2.
[xxii] “ICE is not a law unto itself,’ Minnesota judge says after immigrant released following contempt threat,” CNBC, Jan. 28, 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/28/ice-immigrant-minnesota-contempt-released.html.
[xxiii] Juan v. Noem, Case No. 26-CV-0107 (PJS/DLM), order of Jan. 28, 2026, https:// storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171.10.0_2.pdf .
[xxiv] “Judges Grow Angry Over Trump Administration Violating Their Orders,” New York Times, Feb. 23, 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/us/politics/judges-contempt-immigration-trump.html.