An Honor That No Amount of Prejudice Will Deny

Being nominated and confirmed as a federal judge is one of the greatest honors that any American lawyer can hope for in a career. For Muslim American lawyers, this has been an honor long denied. It was a little over three years ago, in June 2021, when Judge Zahid Qureshi (D-NJ) became the first Muslim American Article III federal judge. Two years later, in June 2023, Judge Nusrat Jahan Choudhury (EDNY) joined the bench as well. And this November, two additional Muslim American judges were confirmed: Judge Mustapha Kasubhai (D-OR) and Judge Amir Ali (D-DC). They will hopefully be joined soon by Adeel Mangi (3d Cir.), a fantastic nominee who has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee but remains pending full confirmation by the Senate. 

It is wonderful to see these accomplished lawyers recognized for their skills and service. But the confirmation process to which some of them were subjected has revealed anti-Muslim bias in government that many of us have long known to exist. And this is just based on the public confirmation hearings—there is likely a much deeper iceberg of prejudice below the surface that continues to hinder consideration and Senate confirmation of Muslim American nominees.

Take, for example, Judge Qureshi’s confirmation hearing. A common Islamophobic trope is the false accusation that Muslims seek to impose Islamic law, or Sharia, on others. Judge Qureshi has no background in Sharia, nor has it ever been a part of his practice as a lawyer. Yet, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) asked a question on this topic:

I’m going to follow up with a question which I’m almost embarrassed to ask, but only because I’ve heard it from other members of this committee from time to time and it’s likely to come up at some point. What do you know about Sharia law?

How often has a Christian nominee been asked about canon law or a Jewish nominee about Halakhah? More disturbing than Sen. Durbin’s question—which, at least, he expressed some embarrassment over asking—was his comment that he has heard the question from other senators on the Judiciary Committee from time to time. This means that this Islamophobic trope is alive in the minds of at least several senators.

When Judge Qureshi answered that he did not know anything about Sharia, Sen. Durbin’s response was curious: “Good. Not good, but certainly we’re anticipating criticism, which has no basis in fact because of things we’ve heard. Your answer is solid.”

What if Judge Qureshi did know something about Sharia? Would an answer explaining elements of Islamic law not have been “solid”? The implication that knowledge or familiarity with Sharia could raise scrutiny confirms the existence of anti-Muslim or Islamophobic bias among some senators.

Such bias was on display at the confirmation hearing of Adeel Mangi in December 2023. While it is true that appellate nominations usually receive greater and more politicized scrutiny than district court nominations, many of the questions for Mangi were steeped in Islamophobic tropes associating Muslims with terrorism and antisemitism. What should have been a hearing about Mangi’s fitness to serve as an appellate judge turned into an interrogation of Mangi’s views on Hamas, Zionism, antisemitism, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) posed these questions: “Do you believe that Zionist settler colonialism was a provocation that justified Hamas’s atrocity against Jews in Israel?” and “Do you believe that Jews are colonial settlers in Israel?” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked Mangi, “Do you condemn the atrocities of Hamas terrorists?” and “Is there any justification for those atrocities?” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) inquired: “Does Israel have a right to exist?” and “Should American Jews be safe in their homes and on their campuses?” Perhaps most shockingly, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) asked, “Is this the way you celebrate 9/11?”

Even the questions seemingly meant to help Mangi served to reemphasize the Islamophobic tropes. For example, Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) asked: “Is there any hesitation on your part to condemn genocide?” and “Is there any hesitation on your part to condemn any person who commits terrorist activities in violence toward innocent people?”

The questions were nominally linked to Mangi’s past service on an academic advisory board for Rutgers Law School’s Center for Security, Race and Rights, but he had nothing to do with the events or statements used to prompt those questions. That fact, which Mangi explained repeatedly, did not stop the onslaught of Islamophobic questions which were clearly intended to smear Mangi.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” In practice, for Muslim Americans, such a test—or at least a pop quiz—does seem to exist. Nonetheless, in the face of such prejudice, it is heartening to know that many qualified Muslim American candidates continue to step forward in service to our country. That service is an honor that no amount of prejudice will deny.

The nomination of Adeel Mangi (3d Cir.) noted in this article was still pending at the time of publication.

Please note: The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates, the Board of Governors, the Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice or the Human Rights Editorial Board of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. They are the views of the individual authors themselves in their personal capacities.