During a nomination hearing for a district judgeship in Oklahoma, a nominee faced difficulty when asked to define basic terms for orders issued by judges. Meanwhile, a group of House Republicans has written a letter urging President Biden to withdraw a controversial judicial nominee with troubling affiliations to 9/11 hijacker sympathizers. The nominee in question is Adeel Abdullah Mangi, who has served as a member of the board of advisers for the Center for Security, Race, and Rights at Rutgers Law School from 2019 to 2023.
In their letter, the lawmakers expressed “grave concerns” about Mangi’s affiliations with an institution that has a history of amplifying antisemitic speech, terrorist propaganda, and anti-American rhetoric. They highlighted the center’s support for efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel through the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, as well as its calls for resistance in Palestine. Several organizations, including the Coalition for Jewish Values and the Zionist Organization of America, have opposed Mangi’s nomination due to these affiliations.
The Republicans also pointed out that the center has sympathized with radical terrorist organizations. On the 20th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the center sponsored an event titled “Whose Narrative? 20 Years since September 11, 2001.” According to the lawmakers, the event included speakers with ties to terrorist organizations, including Sami Al-Arian, a convicted felon who provided support to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). Al-Arian blamed the 9/11 attack on the United States and its support for Israel.
Despite the concerns raised by the Republicans, Mangi advanced out of the committee on a party-line vote and is now awaiting a full Senate vote. Democrats have praised Mangi for possibly being the nation’s first Muslim-American federal appellate judge, highlighting his exceptional legal abilities and commitment to fairness in the administration of justice. However, the Republicans argue that Mangi has failed to denounce the center and its radical ideology, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.
White House spokesperson Andrew Bates defended Mangi’s nomination, stating that President Biden is proud to have nominated him. Bates labeled the Republicans’ criticisms as “vile, unconscionable smears” and accused them of applying a religious litmus test, targeting Mangi for his Muslim faith, which the Constitution forbids. He also noted that the criticisms have been discredited by various organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists.
The controversy surrounding Mangi’s nomination highlights the ongoing debate over judicial nominees and their affiliations. The case raises questions about the importance of scrutinizing nominees’ past associations and ideologies, particularly when they involve sensitive issues such as antisemitism and terrorism. As the nomination moves forward, it remains to be seen how the Senate will address these concerns and whether Mangi’s nomination will be approved.
