Trump’s nominee for the federal bench in Montana squeaks by Senate committee along party lines

President Donald Trump’s pick to become a federal judge in Montana, Kathleen “Katie” Lane, narrowly cleared her way through the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee along a party-line vote, despite the American Bar Association deeming her to be “unqualified” as a candidate.

Last week, the Senate Judiciary forwarded four federal judge nominees, a U.S. marshal and a U.S. attorney nominee to the full Senate. That means Lane will have a full vote of the U.S. Senate, and if confirmed, would take a lifetime appointment as a federal district judge in Montana, replacing retiring federal judge Susan Watters.

She received a 12-10 vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee, one of several to only receive support from Republicans on the committee. 

Lane’s nomination has received widespread criticism stemming from her lack of experience, especially at the trial court level. Lane is from Bozeman and attended George Mason Law School. 

The American Bar Association, the largest nonpartisan professional group of attorneys in the country, rates judicial candidates as a means of aiding lawmakers to gauge the professional experience of nominees, as well as to inform the public. It evaluates both trial court and appellate court nominees to the federal bench. It has previously said that Lane was not qualified for the appointment, a conclusion  one GOP Senator seemed to relish.

“I hope she wears her ABA rating as a badge of honor based on the history of stellar judges who received poor ABA ratings,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said to the ABA Journal. 

The ABA said it “strictly” evaluates the candidates on professional qualifications, which touch on integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.

The ABA said that in addition to recommending 12 years of professional experience, candidates for the federal bench should have significant trial experience. 

The committee also evaluated more than 200 comments that were submitted regarding Lane.

“After a thorough peer review evaluation and careful deliberation, a majority of the Standing Committee has concluded that Lane presently does not meet the requisite minimum standard of experience necessary to be qualified for the high office of a federal trial judge,” the ABA letter concluded.

Lane graduated from law school in 2017 and has completed two clerkships for federal judges. She was also briefly a deputy solicitor general for the State of Montana. That translates to less than seven years of experience as an attorney. Lane has clerked for two federal judges, but she has never taken a case to trial or performed other common courtroom tasks. During questioning, she admitted she has only cross-examined one person on the witness stand.

Process and politics

Attorneys and leaders in the legal field call the ABA ratings the gold standard.

Meanwhile, Montana’s senior U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, a Republican, gave his endorsement of Lane during her introduction and nomination hearing. He said at the time that she had the support of fellow Montana Republican Sen. Tim Sheehy.

The Daily Montanan has reached out to both for more detailed reasons why they support Lane’s candidacy, but neither office responded. 

Her nomination has also drawn a number of opinion columns from Montana attorneys who have debated her career bonafides for the position, with many of those falling along political party lines.

Lane is currently the chief counsel for the Republican National Committee.

Carl Tobias, a former law professor at the University of Montana and currently the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond, was a staff attorney for the Senate Judiciary Committee before coming to the Treasure State. 

Tobias said that while some Senators may publicly discount the ABA ratings, they are useful when evaluating the substantial number of candidates who come before the committee. 

“As Sen. Lindsey Graham, the longtime SJC member and recent chairman has said, the ABA efforts are ‘the gold standard,’” Tobias said. “The committee includes many highly respected lawyers who diligently and carefully analyze the candidates, often soliciting input from at least 100 practicing lawyers, and compiling very professional and comprehensive evaluations and reliable ratings of the candidates.”

Tobias and others have pointed out repeatedly that of the different categories that are measured, Lane simply lacks the legal experience – especially when it comes to running the day-to-day operations of a court. 

“If the Senate does confirm Lane, which it will probably do, it is difficult to predict what that will mean for Montana,” he said.

The federal government provides training for newly confirmed judges on issues they may encounter and best practices for addressing them. This is often referred to as “Baby Judges School.” . That program also pairs new judges with seasoned judges. 

“There are many well qualified Montana attorneys who could be excellent district judges,” Tobias said.

He said that Montana’s bench is staffed by hard-working veteran jurists who will likely help her behind the scenes if Lane is confirmed.

Brutal confirmation

Even though Lane barely made it out of the committee along party lines, most of the votes were far less partisan. For example, a different nominee in her cohort, Sheria Akin Clarke, who has been nominated as a district court judge in South Carolina, received a 15-to-7 vote; Kenneth Sorenson, who has been nominated as the U.S. Attorney for Hawai’i, received a 19-to-3 vote.

But Lane faced a blistering Senate panel during her confirmation hearing in March in which she and the others nominated struggled to say definitively who won the 2020 Election and if the Jan. 6, 2021, invasion of the U.S. Capitol was an insurrection. 

“Was the Capitol attacked (on Jan. 6, 2021)?” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut 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.”

When the Trump nominees had a difficult time answering those questions, Democratic senators voiced outrage, even though Lane was the only one of the candidates to respond that President Joe Biden won the 2020 Election.

“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. If you can’t sit here and say Joe Biden won that election or the capitol was attacked, what’s left?” asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island. 

Lane’s lack of experience also worried some senators. 

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