Senators raise concerns about Montana nominee to federal bench, lack of experience

In the confirmation hearing for Katie Lane to become a federal district court judge in Montana, Democratic Senators focused more on what she either didn’t say or wouldn’t say.

They noted that she had never been the lead attorney during a trial — a district court judge presides over trials. She has never led jury selection. Lane admitted that she has cross-examined one witness during the only trial in which she participated as an attorney of record, and only completed one deposition. She has never participated as an attorney in jury trial.

And in a testy back-and-forth line of questioning, she at first refused to answer who won the 2020 presidential election, although later said it was Joe Biden. And she also refused to comment on the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, saying it would be unfair to judge an issue that may come before her.

Meanwhile, after the Democrats’ sharp line of questioning, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, read into the official record letters of support from 24 Attorneys General from across the United States supporting her, including Montana’s Austin Knudsen, one from her former law firm, and one from former or current attorneys working for solicitors general from across the country.

U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, Montana’s senior Senator, a Republican, introduced her, saying that he has known her since she was a little girl.

“Her distinguished record of public service and experience in the federal and state judiciary makes her well qualified to serve on the federal bench,” Daines said.

But it was Lane’s experience that many of the Senators homed in on. Lane graduated from law school in 2017, and completed two clerkships for judges at both the trial court and the appellate level. When asked by Sen. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, how long — excluding those clerkships — she’d been practicing law, she did not answer the question directly.

Lane was raised in Bozeman, having graduated from Bozeman Senior High School. She graduated from law school from George Mason University. She serves as senior counsel to the Republican National Committee and worked as the Deputy Solicitor General of Montana from 2021 to 2023 under current Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican.

“For many years, we’ve dealt with an activist judiciary that repeatedly rules against the interests of Montana, and that’s why it’s essential we pick principled jurists, committed to upholding the Constitution and making decisions based upon the rule of law, not personal politics or viewpoints,” Daines said.

Daines also testified that Lane has the support of both Montana’s senators, including Tim Sheehy, a Republican. However, the Daily Montanan has asked Sheehy about his support. His office did not respond.

Lane said that her job both in private practice, during her clerkship, and while at the Republican National Committee, would serve her well on the bench, replacing retiring judge Susan Watters. The position, which requires the approval of the United States Senate, is a lifetime appointment.

“Often those cases are moving on very fast timelines,” she said. “I had to get up to speed very quickly on both the legal and factual issues, and if I have the privilege of being confirmed to the federal bench of the State of Montana, I’d take that same diligence with me.”

Experience

The majority of opposition and concern about Lane centered on what some Senators saw as a shortage of experience necessary to become a federal judge.

Schiff questioned Lane about her experience in a courtroom, especially during a trial.

Lane defended her experience, saying that she had been a part of many aspects, including motions and briefing as a clerk.

“I was a federal law clerk and I wouldn’t say I handled the trials — I’d say the judge handled the trials,” Schiff said.

Lane said that during her one trial experience, among the four attorneys on the case, she was the third most experienced.

“It was a weeklong trial involving complicated constitutional issues,” Lane said.

She also said that she had never completed jury selection or served as a lead attorney in a court case.

“When you’re a law clerk, you observe what happens,” Schiff said. “You don’t do it yourself. Observing them and trying a case are two different things, I’m sure you’d agree.”

The American Bar Association rates federal judicial nominees, using three rankings — well qualified, qualified or not qualified. The decision is based on a vote from its standing committee on federal judicial rankings. It has not taken a position on Lane, but the organization recommends 12 years of experience for the position.

Elections and insurrection

While the entire hearing, lasting more than 90 minutes and focusing on four nominees by President Donald J. Trump to various federal judicial positions, was charged throughout, the most confrontational came when Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, asked all of the nominees who won the 2020 presidential election. That line of questioning was followed by a question from Blumenthal about whether the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol was an insurrection.

When Blumenthal asked about the 2020 election, all the candidates, including Lane, replied by outlining the electoral process and the Electoral College certification process as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Frustrated, Blumenthal repeated the question — asking who won the popular vote, something the candidates sidestepped.

However, after questioning, Lane answered.

“Again senator, the Constitution outlines a process as a judicial nominee, I’m here to talk about what the Constitution requires is an electoral vote and certification by Congress,” she said.

“Who won the 2020 presidential election?” Blumenthal asked.

“In 2020?” Lane said. “President Joe Biden.”

“Was the Capitol attacked (on Jan. 6, 2021)?” Blumenthal asked.

“Senator, the characterization of Jan. 6 is ongoing and subject to ongoing controversy and debate,” Lane replied. “As a nominee, it would be inappropriate for me to characterize it.”

Blumenthal then replied to the four nominees.

“The answers here which are canned are obviously pre-rehearsed. They’re Orwellian in their denial of reality,” he said. “They are a subversion of this process and they are an insult to this committee. They fundamentally show a complete lack of independence and backbone and impartiality, which is a fundamental requirement of a U.S. district court judge.

“I am a little disappointed you’re not more original that you can’t think of a few different words. I’m just amazed.”

When Blumenthal’s time expired, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, took up the inquiry.

“Just to finish Sen. Blumenthal’s thought, I hope you four realize how ridiculous you look spouting these preposterous canned answers in a forum in which you were supposed to tell the truth and demonstrate the judicial capacity to make independent factual decisions in hard cases,” Whitehouse said. “If you can’t sit here and say Joe Biden won that election or the capitol was attacked, what’s left?

“What’s left if the hard case comes by and as a judge let’s say the Trump administration is bearing down on that. Why would we ever believe you’d give the litigant a fair hearing and a fair decision if the executive branch was leaning into you when we can’t a reasonable answer out of any of you.”

Lane’s nomination will now be in the hands of the Senate’s Judiciary Committee, which has a majority of Republicans. If she garners enough support there, her nomination will move onto the full U.S. Senate where she must be confirmed by a simple majority of Republicans. A vote on her nomination has not been scheduled yet.