Jeff Mateer

Jeffrey Carl Mateer is the first assistant attorney general of Texas. On September 7, 2017, Mateer was nominated to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas by President Donald Trump (R).^[1][2][3] On December 13, it was reported that Mateer's nomination had been withdrawn.^[4]

Education

Mateer earned his bachelor's degree with honors from Dickinson College in 1987 and his J.D. with honors from Southern Methodist University School of Law in 1990.^[1][5]

Professional career

• 2016 - Present: First assistant attorney general of Texas
• 2010-2016: General counsel, First Liberty Institute
• 1996-2010: Private practice, Dallas, Texas^[1][5]

Federal judicial nomination

See also: Federal judges nominated by Donald Trump

Eastern District of Texas

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Jeffrey Carl Mateer
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Progress
Withdrawn 118 days after nomination.
Nominated: September 7, 2017
ABA Rating: Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified
Questionnaire:
Hearing:
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
Reported:
Confirmed:
Withdrawn: January 3, 2018

Mateer was nominated by President Donald Trump (R) on September 7, 2017, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas vacated by Richard Schell. The American Bar Association rated Mateer Substantial Majority Qualified, Minority Not Qualified for the nomination. In December 2017, Senator Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed concern over some of Mateer's statements and advised the White House not to move forward with Mateer's nomination. The White House later announced it would not move forward with the nomination.^[1][2][6]

Responses to the ABA's ratings

See also: ABA ratings during the Trump administration

The ABA's assessment in 2017 that some of President Trump's judicial nominees were not qualified for their positions prompted responses from senators and from various media outlets. Below is a sampling of the reactions from various public officials and media outlets.

Support for the ABA's role in nominations

In an editorial published on November 14, 2017, the editorial board of The Los Angeles Times argued that the ABA should not be removed from the process and that the president should re-engage with the ABA on nominations. "The ABA isn't infallible, but it has a record of evaluating prospective judges in a fair and bipartisan way. Evaluators from its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conduct confidential interviews with people who worked with prospective nominees and then rate the candidates on the basis of experience, integrity and temperament. If it has a bias, it is in favor of litigators," the editorial stated.^[7]

Democratic senators maintained that the ABA was a neutral evaluator.^[8] Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) stated, "I think most people understand what's going on here. They are really picking people for the lifetime appointments on the federal bench who have questionable backgrounds and questionable experience."^[8] Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) argued that the ABA's rating was "the one legally-oriented counsel that we get," while Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) argued that it was "deeply regrettable that some members of the Senate are suggesting that it’s a partisan organization."^[8]

Criticism of the ABA's role

The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial published on November 14, 2017, argued that ABA ratings should be disregarded entirely during the review process. The editorial stated, "If Republicans are serious about getting President Trump’s judicial nominees confirmed, they will have to rid themselves of the fiction of a politically neutral American Bar Association. The outfit’s recent antics provide ample reason to remove it from Senate vetting."^[9] A report in The New York Times indicated that the administration was "considering advising future nominees not to submit to interviews by the association or sign confidentiality waivers that provide its evaluators access to disciplinary records."^[7]

Following the ABA's not qualified ratings, Republicans criticized the ABA's process, arguing that it was partisan and should not be considered a neutral evaluator. Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) stated on the Senate floor, "We should completely dispel with the fiction that the American Bar Association is a fair and impartial arbiter of facts. This is a sad reality, but it is the reality."^[10][11] Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argued that the ABA "has demonstrated over past decades repeatedly partisan interests and ideological interests," while Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) argued that the ABA was "blatantly political. Often. Not always."^[8]

ABA testimony, November 15, 2017

In a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting on November 15, 2017, Pamela Bresnahan, the chair of the ABA's standing committee on the federal judiciary, was invited to testify about the Grasz nomination specifically and the ABA review process generally. Bresnahan provided a supplemental statement to the committee as a portion of her committee testimony. This statement was an additional response to the ABA's October 30, 2017, statement attending the ABA's not qualified rating of Grasz's nomination. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who chaired the committee meeting on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee chair, Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), indicated after Bresnahan's testimony that the record would be kept open for one week in order for senators to present questions for the record that the ABA would be afforded an opportunity to answer.

The following day, Senator Grassley chaired an executive business meeting of the Judiciary Committee. Grassley, in prepared remarks, acknowledged that he would have more to say on specific nominees rated not qualified by the ABA at a later date, but stated, "Of course, the ABA doesn’t share the names of those who said this because they claim it allows for the interviewees to be more candid about a nominee. This certainly may be true. But it’s also true that there is another particular danger in giving too much power to testimony that comes from folks who know they won’t ever be held accountable for their words or accusations."^[12]

Grassley urges reconsideration of Mateer's nomination

On December 12, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley stated that he had urged the White House to reconsider Mateer's nomination. Grassley's spokesman said that the senator was concerned by statements Mateer had previously made.^[13]

Nomination withdrawn

On December 13, 2017, it was reported that the White House had withdrawn Mateer's nomination.^[14]

See also

• United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
• United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit

External links

• White House announcement of Mateer's nomination

Footnotes