In a high-stakes Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that felt more like a cultural cross-examination than a judicial vetting, Eric Tung—President Trump’s nominee for a lifetime seat on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—found himself at the center of a political and ideological lightning storm on Wednesday.
Tung, now a polished appellate partner at Jones Day and once a law clerk to Justices Neil Gorsuch and the late Antonin Scalia, was pressed hard on statements he made as a Yale undergrad in 2004. The quotes, pulled from a campus newspaper, included his critique of “radical feminists” for “blurring gender roles” and “undermining institutions like marriage.” He also suggested women were “better than men at some things,” and emphasized traditional gender roles as a societal glue.
California Senator Alex Padilla didn’t mince words, calling the comments “reprehensible” and arguing that Tung’s nomination was less about legal brilliance and more about ideological alignment with Trump’s brand of conservatism. Padilla also revealed the White House had disregarded his own bipartisan recommendations for the seat in favor of Tung.
Tung’s defense? The remarks, he said, were made over two decades ago during his college years, and he now holds a more nuanced view. He invoked his wife’s professional achievements as a counterpoint to the idea that he holds limiting beliefs about women.
But for some on the panel, the past wasn’t so easily dismissed. Senator Dick Durbin challenged Tung not just on the college comments, but also on more recent writings. In prepared remarks for a Federalist Society event, Tung appeared to question the constitutional grounding of rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, and even private consensual relationships, stating that for originalists, the answer to whether such rights exist is “simple: no.”
Durbin didn’t let that slide. “This isn’t just about what you said at 20,” he warned. “You’re still drafting ideas that run directly against settled constitutional precedent.”
Pressed on whether he believed in a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Tung answered carefully: Obergefell v. Hodges is “binding precedent,” he said, and as a judge, he would follow it. As for his personal views on gender roles? He declined to comment, citing the possibility of future litigation on the issue.
While Republican Senator Chuck Grassley praised Tung as “a standout appellate lawyer,” the hearing made one thing clear: this nomination is not gliding through quietly. For some, Tung embodies the originalist legal philosophy they champion. For others, he is a throwback to a social worldview the courts have long moved past.
The committee also considered three other nominees that day, but none drew fire quite like Tung.
