President Biden regularly nominates leftist radicals to the bench. But the nomination of Adeel Mangi to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is especially concerning. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, led by Democrats, will vote on his nomination. Mr. Mangi’s association with the Center for Security, Race and Rights at Rutgers Law School from 2019 to 2023 casts a long shadow over his ability to serve impartially.
During Mr. Mangi’s tenure, the center engaged in activities and hosted events criticized for propagating anti-Israel hatred and featured speakers with pro-terrorist backgrounds. The involvement of Sami al-Arian, a convicted felon who pleaded guilty to aiding Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a designated foreign terrorist organization, in a center event is particularly alarming. Palestinian Islamic Jihad is indisputably a terrorist organization known for violent acts against civilians, including the Oct. 7 terrorist attack on Israel that killed both Israeli and American citizens.
Furthermore, the center’s stance on Hamas, another group responsible for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack, is deeply concerning. The center’s refusal to condemn such acts and instead frame them as a response to “colonial violence” and “oppression” displays derangement and a disturbing bias.
Mr. Mangi’s contributions to the center, both financially and through his role in facilitating his law firm’s support, indicate more than just a passive association, as he claims. His decision to join the board of advisers, reportedly at the behest of Sahar Aziz, who herself holds antisemitic views, further compounds the issue. Ms. Aziz’s public statements and actions, including criticism of the Anti-Defamation League and a tweet following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack where she said Israel “can’t imprison 2 million Gazans without paying a cruel price” reveal a highly troubling perspective on issues related to Israel and antisemitism.
In his hearings, Mr. Mangi attempted to downplay his role at the center, describing it as limited to providing academic advice. But the visibility of his law firm, Patterson Belknap, as a sponsor on the center’s website, coupled with his position on the board, indicates a more significant involvement. This contradiction between his statements and the evidence raises questions about his transparency and honesty.
Criticism of events occurring when Mr. Mangi was working with the center comes from both sides of the aisle. For instance, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, New Jersey Democrat, condemned the use of a 9/11 anniversary event to provide a platform for those affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad, saying, “it is unconscionable that a day meant to reflect on the deadliest attack on United States soil was used to provide a platform to those affiliated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad.”
Similarly, Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League and articles in publications like The Jerusalem Post highlighted concerns over the center’s activities and Mr. Mangi’s involvement.
Events such as “Whose Narrative? 20 Years since September 11” and “100 Years’ War on Palestine Teach In” hosted by the center during Mr. Mangi’s tenure, which included speakers with known sympathies for terrorist groups and those who have called for violence, were nothing more than antisemitic echo chambers hosted by the center. These are not isolated incidents, but rather part of a pattern that suggests biased and antisemitic views.
The issue here is not about stifling academic freedom or the right to diverse opinions. It is about the appropriateness of a judicial nominee being associated with an organization that repeatedly crossed the line into endorsing and providing platforms for violent extremist views and individuals linked to terrorism.
Mr. Mangi’s involvement with the center, especially given its radical activities, poses a significant concern regarding his suitability as a judge. Would a Jewish American expect to be treated fairly in a courtroom run by Mr. Mangi? We expect our judges to be impartial, to uphold the law, and to protect the rights of all. Mr. Mangi’s past association and the actions of the center during his tenure indicate a bias that is incompatible with these principles.
The selection of Mr. Mangi by President Biden is an indictment of the president’s judgment. It is imperative for the integrity of the judiciary and the trust of the public that nominees like Mr. Mangi never take the federal bench. Democrats can’t be expected to reject all of Mr. Biden’s radical nominees, but Mr. Mangi crosses the line. This should be a no-brainer for Senate Democrats. The Senate must reject Mr. Mangi’s nomination.
Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project. He previously served as the chief counsel for nominations of the SenateJudiciary Committee and a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.