WASHINGTON — Senate Judiciary Committee members pressed two federal appeals court nominees on their past writings, affiliations and judicial philosophy during a hearing that focused on whether those matters bear on lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

The committee heard from Eric Tongue, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Joshua Dunlap, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Democrats, led by Sen. Richard Durbin and Sen. Alex Padilla, raised concerns about Tongue’s college-era comments and more recent statements, while Republicans emphasized originalist and textualist approaches to interpretation and praised the nominees’ records.

Why it matters: Appellate judges set binding precedent for large regions of the country; the Ninth Circuit covers nine Western states and the First Circuit covers New England. Nominees’ written views and prior advocacy became focal points because circuit judges decide high-profile legal questions and serve lifetime terms.

Lawmakers pressed Tongue about a 2004 college speech and later remarks in which he said he "believe[d] in emphasizing family and what it means for a woman to be a good wife or partner" and that he "believe[d] in gender roles." Sen. Durbin asked directly, "Do you believe there's a constitutional right to marriage for same‑sex couples?" Tongue replied: "The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell versus Hodges has granted such a right. And as a circuit judge, if I were so lucky to be confirmed, I would be bound by that precedent." (Eric Tongue, testimony.)

Several Democrats, notably Sen. Alex Padilla, said the White House did not sufficiently consult home‑state senators on the Ninth Circuit nomination and called attention to what they described as troubling aspects of Tongue’s record. "I strongly oppose this nomination and urge you to do the same," Padilla said during his remarks, citing concerns about Tongue’s statements on welfare, family structure and LGBTQ rights.

Tongue told the committee that he subscribes to originalism and textualism, and repeatedly said that as a judge he would be bound by Supreme Court precedent. He described his clerkships with Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch as formative and said he learned ‘‘analytical rigor’’ and ‘‘careful diligence’’ from those positions.

Senators also questioned Dunlap about prior public positions on reproductive‑rights measures and whether his personal views would influence his judicial work. Dunlap said repeatedly that his personal policy preferences are not relevant to the judicial role and that he would be bound to apply binding precedent, including Obergefell and other Supreme Court decisions. "My personal, policy preferences again, Senator, are not relevant to the job that I would have should I be confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit," Dunlap said.

Republican senators including Susan Collins and Mike Lee emphasized the nominees’ appellate experience and support from home‑state officials. Sen. Collins introduced Dunlap and described him as the advisory committee’s top pick in Maine; Sen. McConnell introduced Chad Meredith (a separate district nominee heard later in the day) and praised his record.

Committee questioning touched on other matters raised in public reporting: Tongue’s ties to conservative judicial networks, whether outside advisers discussed his nomination with the White House, and his prior representation of corporate clients. Tongue said recusal decisions would be made case‑by‑case should he be confirmed.

Several senators pressed both nominees on how they would treat Supreme Court precedent they personally disagreed with. Each answered that binding Supreme Court precedent would guide their decisions. Repeated exchanges on originalism, legislative history, and the scope of Article I, Section 7 highlighted the committee’s focus on interpretation methods as well as past statements.

The hearing produced no committee vote. The nominees were sworn in, gave opening statements and answered rounds of questions from both parties. The panel concluded after several hours of testimony and questioning.

The nominees’ responses and the issues raised at the hearing are now part of the record as the committee weighs whether to report the nominations to the full Senate for confirmation votes.

— Ending: The committee moved on after concluding panel one; additional nominees for district court seats were then called to testify.