Three of President Trump’s nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee faced repeated, pointed questions about whether executive-branch officials can lawfully refuse to follow orders from lower federal courts.

The issue emerged as a central line of questioning during the confirmation hearing for Stanley Woodward (nominee for Associate Attorney General), Elliott Geiser (nominee for Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel), John Squires (nominee for Undersecretary of Commerce and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office) and Joseph Edlow (nominee for Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services). Senators raised the possibility that officials might decline to obey district-court rulings they expect the Supreme Court to overturn.

The exchanges began when Senator Dick Durbin asked the panel, “If after exhausting all rights of appeal, do you believe a litigant including officials in the executive branch can lawfully defy a court order?” That line of questioning recurred throughout the hearing as multiple senators sought unequivocal answers.

All four nominees voiced respect for the Supreme Court’s authority, but their replies varied in specificity. Stanley Woodward said he “can’t imagine a circumstance in which I would be called upon to advise the defiance of a court order.” Elliott Geiser told Senator John Kennedy earlier he would “advise a client to follow court orders,” and later reiterated that he advises clients to comply with applicable court orders. John Squires said the Supreme Court’s precedents “govern and that would be followed.” Joseph Edlow repeatedly declined to answer the hypothetical directly, saying he would “follow advice of counsel” and that he did not want to speculate on hypothetical litigation positions.

Senators — including Durbin, John Kennedy and Adam Schiff — pressed for narrower yes-or-no replies. Senator Schiff repeatedly asked whether any nominee would ever advise the administration to disregard a district-court order on the belief the Supreme Court would later overturn it; nominees either answered “no,” said they would advise following court orders, or declined to answer hypotheticals. The repeated exchanges prompted several senators to frame the matter as a constitutional question about the separation of powers and the rule of law.

Why it matters: The Office of Legal Counsel and senior Justice Department officials provide legal advice that can determine whether the executive branch implements or pauses policies after litigation. Senators said unequivocal commitments to follow court orders are central to preserving the rule of law; nominees and supporters emphasized that the Supreme Court’s rulings are accepted and that litigation must be evaluated case by case.

Committee context and precedent: Senators referenced the Administrative Procedure Act and recent Supreme Court developments (including discussion of Chevron deference and the court’s role in nationwide injunctions) while debating when agency rules must be changed and whether courts may issue nationwide relief. Nominees repeatedly stressed they would evaluate particular matters on their facts and follow binding Supreme Court precedent.

The hearing continued with additional rounds of policy-specific questioning; committee members said written follow-up questions may be submitted for the record.