Senator Hawley Confronts Nominee Over Religious Discrimination During COVID Lockdowns

The Senate hearing room was silent, tension thick in the air, as Senator Josh Hawley leaned forward, papers in hand, and locked eyes with the judicial nominee seated before him. This was not going to be a polite exchange of legal theory and rehearsed talking points. It was a confrontation about a fundamental American right: religious liberty.

At issue was the nominee’s defense of Washington, D.C.’s COVID-19 lockdown policies, which shut down churches and religious gatherings—even those held outdoors, with masks and social distancing—while allowing mass political protests to proceed unhindered. Hawley’s questioning cut straight to the heart of the matter: Was this a case of government discrimination against people of faith?

A Double Standard Exposed

Hawley began methodically, establishing the record. He reminded the nominee of previous testimony, written answers, and a clear admission: unlike most nominees, this one had repeatedly litigated against religious liberty claims, not once, not twice, but again and again over several years. Hawley focused on one case in particular—Capitol Hill Baptist Church v. Bowser—where the district’s lockdown policies were challenged as unconstitutional.

“Did the lockdowns restrict churches?” Hawley asked.

“Yes,” the nominee replied.

“Were religious gatherings banned even outdoors with masks and distancing?”

“Yes.”

“And were mass protests restricted in the same way?” Hawley pressed.

The nominee hesitated, deflected, and claimed the orders were silent on the matter. Hawley seized on this silence, making clear that silence became permission—and permission became discrimination.

“So you think it’s fine to say to religious people that they are prohibited from gathering outside, wearing a mask, socially distanced, they can’t do it,” Hawley said. “But if you want to come and protest, defund the police, if you want to support that, that’s fine. You can gather in mass, person to person, close up, thousands of people. That’s okay. That discrimination is okay. That is your position.”

The nominee denied this was his position, but Hawley persisted: “It was your position. That’s what you argued.”

The Court’s Verdict: Unconstitutional Discrimination

The nominee admitted he had defended the mayor’s policies in court, representing the city against a constitutional challenge to the COVID restrictions. When asked how the case ended, he replied, “We lost that case.”

“Why?” Hawley pressed.

“It was found that the restrictions did not meet the standard of strict scrutiny—meaning they were unconstitutional,” the nominee acknowledged.

Hawley didn’t let up. “Why were the restrictions struck down as discriminatory?”

“Because they did not satisfy strict scrutiny,” the nominee answered, lapsing into legal jargon.

Hawley cut through the legalese: “On the facts. You were a good lawyer. Why’d you lose?”

“We lost because, applying the strict scrutiny test, the court concluded that the restrictions were not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.”

Hawley summarized the real-world impact. “Mayor Bowser was going to mass protests herself, personally, with thousands of people, celebrating them. At the same time she was doing that, she was prohibiting churches, religious people from gathering socially distanced outside, wearing masks. And the district court said, ‘You can’t do that. That’s discrimination. You can’t separate people out based on their ideological beliefs or their positions. You can’t do that, right?’”

The nominee conceded, “That was what the district court concluded.”

A Fight for Constitutional Principle

Hawley pressed the nominee to admit the core issue: “Do you think it’s wrong to discriminate on the basis of religious faith?”

“Absolutely, Senator,” the nominee replied.

“Why did you argue that religious services, religious people pose a greater risk of infection than people gathered to argue for defunding the police?” Hawley asked. “That seems like a strange argument to me—that religious people are somehow more infectious than folks who have other ideological positions.”

The nominee cited epidemiological concerns, such as singing, but Hawley pointed out that no scientific evidence had been put into the record to justify the differential treatment.

A Pattern of Defending Discriminatory Policies

By the end of his questioning, Hawley had exposed a pattern: the nominee had repeatedly defended policies that punished religious believers while excusing politically favored conduct. Hawley’s arguments were anchored in court rulings, factual outcomes, and constitutional principles. He made it clear this was not a debate over abstract law, but a real failure that harmed real people.

What set Hawley apart was his refusal to normalize what should never be normal. He reminded the Senate that religious liberty is not a privilege granted by government officials during convenient moments—it’s a foundational right, protected precisely when it is unpopular or inconvenient.

Hawley did not argue that protests were wrong or that free speech should be limited. Instead, he insisted on one simple principle: the law must apply equally to everyone. When churches were shut down while mass political gatherings were tolerated and even encouraged, Hawley identified that as an unconstitutional double standard, not a public health necessity.

A Stand for Accountability and Constitutional Fidelity

By the time Hawley concluded his questioning, the issue was no longer about a single case or a single nomination. It was about whether the Senate would reward evasiveness and ideological bias or stand up for accountability and constitutional fidelity.

Hawley chose the latter. His decision to oppose the nomination was grounded in principle, not politics, and reflected a serious understanding of the power that federal judges and officials wield. In standing firm, Hawley sent a clear signal: defending discrimination, minimizing constitutional violations, or refusing to own past failures disqualifies anyone from positions of lasting authority.

Conclusion: The Stakes for Religious Liberty

The hearing was a stark reminder that religious liberty is not negotiable. It is not subject to the whims of political leaders or the convenience of public health officials. As Hawley made clear, the Constitution demands equal treatment for all Americans—regardless of faith or ideology.

In an era when government power is often used to separate people based on their beliefs, Hawley’s questioning stood as a powerful defense of the principle that makes America unique: freedom of religion, protected for all, especially when it is inconvenient.