President Donald Trump's nominee for a federal judgeship in Louisiana defended her previous support for forced arbitration in sexual harassment and assault cases during a contentious Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. Anna St. John, nominated to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, faced intense scrutiny from Democratic senators over testimony she gave to Congress in 2021 opposing legislation to end mandatory arbitration for certain workplace disputes.
The hearing marked the Senate Judiciary Committee's first judicial nominations session of 2025 and signaled a return to the partisan battles over court appointments that characterized Trump's first term. While the committee also considered other judicial nominees and Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Democrats focused their sharpest questions on St. John's record.
At the center of the controversy were comments St. John made during a 2021 House Judiciary Committee hearing, where she defended forced arbitration as a "potentially advantageous" dispute resolution process for consumers and employees. Notably, she argued this remained true "even when serious harms such as sexual harassment and assault are at issue."
In her House testimony, St. John, who serves as president and general counsel at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, warned that federal legislation to end forced arbitration would raise constitutional concerns. "A federal law that takes away individuals' right to agree to arbitrate claims relating to sexual harassment and assault pre-dispute raises concerns," she told lawmakers at the time. "It removes decision making about these issues from those personally affected by them and transfers it to the federal government."
St. John further argued that such legislation would deny sexual assault victims access to what she characterized as a "valid and often advantageous dispute resolution process." She framed arbitration as faster and less expensive than traditional litigation.
Forced arbitration has become a flashpoint in employment law debates, with critics arguing that the practice allows employers to shield misconduct from public scrutiny while limiting workers' legal options. Under these arrangements, employees are typically required to resolve disputes through private mediation rather than pursuing lawsuits in open court.
The issue gained renewed attention following high-profile sexual harassment scandals in recent years. Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2024, argued that forced arbitration strips employees "of their rights to future justice." Congress has repeatedly considered legislation to address the practice.
During Wednesday's hearing, St. John attempted to clarify her position, arguing that her previous statements should not be interpreted as minimizing the experiences of women seeking accountability for harassment. The nominee appeared to distance herself from some of her earlier remarks while maintaining that arbitration can serve as a legitimate dispute resolution mechanism.
Democratic senators pressed St. John on whether her views would influence her judicial decision-making if confirmed to the federal bench. The Eastern District of Louisiana covers a significant portion of the state, including New Orleans, and handles numerous employment discrimination and civil rights cases.
The scrutiny of St. John's record reflects broader concerns among Democrats about Trump's judicial nominees and their potential impact on workers' rights and civil rights protections. During his first term, Trump appointed more than 230 federal judges, including three Supreme Court justices, fundamentally reshaping the federal judiciary.
St. John's nomination comes as the legal landscape around forced arbitration continues to evolve. While some states have enacted laws limiting the practice, federal courts have generally enforced arbitration agreements even in cases involving serious allegations of misconduct.
The nominee's background at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, a conservative legal organization, has also drawn Democratic criticism. The group has advocated for limited government regulation and has opposed various consumer protection measures.
If confirmed, St. John would join a federal bench that has increasingly been asked to weigh in on arbitration disputes and employment law issues. Her views on these matters could prove significant given the Eastern District of Louisiana's jurisdiction over major commercial litigation.
The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet scheduled a vote on St. John's nomination. Democrats on the committee are expected to continue pressing her on arbitration issues and other aspects of her legal philosophy during the confirmation process.
The hearing highlighted the ongoing political battles over judicial nominations and underscored how past statements and positions by nominees continue to generate controversy during confirmation proceedings. As the confirmation process moves forward, St. John's defenders argue that her legal expertise qualifies her for the position, while critics maintain that her views on arbitration raise serious concerns about her fitness to serve on the federal bench.