Todd Butler’s bare Senate Judiciary Committee Questionnaire.
Todd Butler has recently released his questionnaire for the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following timeline outlines the sequence Butler presents for his nomination:
On June 29, 2026, Senator Roger Wicker reached out to me about a potential vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. I spoke with Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith the following day. On July 1, 2026, an official from the White House Counsel’s Office contacted me to arrange an interview. On July 13, 2026, I interviewed with officials from the White House Counsel’s Office. Following my interview, I received periodic updates from Senator Wicker about the process. On October I, 2026, President Trump called to inform me that he planned to nominate me for a position on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
One crucial date is conspicuously absent here. On September 28, 2026, Judge Southwick publicly announced that he would take senior status. Yet three months earlier, Senator Wicker had already contacted Butler about the potential vacancy.
As I stated from the start, the outcome seemed predetermined. There appeared to be some agreement involving Wicker, Southwick, and the White House. I’m confident this interview was a formality, and I doubt any other candidates were interviewed. Judge Southwick could have disclosed his intentions in August or early September, but he delayed until the final moment to obstruct the process, ensuring Butler would not advance. I hope at least one Senator asks Butler whether he is aware of any communications in which Judge Southwick, directly or indirectly, conditioned his willingness to take senior status on Butler’s nomination.
Regarding the rest of the SJQ, let’s just say Butler’s record is sparse. Or, perhaps, Butler didn’t do it.
Butler attended law school from 2005 to 2008, but he was not a member of the Federalist Society at that time. This aligns with his critical writings about Justice Scalia, originalism, and the Second Amendment. He was not a member while clerking. In fact, he did not join the Federalist Society until 2016. It seems many joined around the time of Trump’s rise to power; such affiliations can influence career prospects. He has never held leadership roles within FedSoc. Still, he was active in the Inn of Court and the Mississippi Bar, holding several leadership positions.
Butler brings substantial experience in employment-law matters. In addition to the publications I noted, Butler speaks and writes frequently about the EEOC, the FLSA, and related municipal-law topics. His sole professional exposure to constitutional law involves defending local officials sued for alleged First Amendment violations. After Olivier v. City of Brandon, his most notable case was serving as defense counsel in a wrongful-death action. He taught at the Mississippi College of Law “periodic[ally]” between 2008 and 2016, though he does not recall the exact semesters, and he does not possess copies of the syllabi.
Here is how Butler describes his pro bono work:
Over the course of my career, I have taken on pro bono clients, typically through the Mission First Legal Aid Clinic or the Mississippi Volunteers Lawyers Project. I have assisted with adoptions, child visitation matters, and other domestic issues. I have also provided pro bono services to a local church, including contract review and procedure drafting, in connection with the operation of a faith-based children’s center. I advised a local pastor on a land acquisition he is considering using for a fellowship facility. Additionally, I have volunteered, along with colleagues at my law firm, at Stewpot Community Services, where we served meals to people experiencing homelessness.
There is no pro bono work that would remotely align with the conservative legal movement. And no, working for a church does not automatically render someone conservative.
If this questionnaire were shown to you, absent any knowledge of Mississippi politics, would you view this as a credible record for the Fifth Circuit? No.
