On Monday, Popular Information reported on the nomination of Adeel Mangi to be a federal appeals court judge in the Third Circuit. Mangi's resume would typically result in a quick confirmation. He received his legal education at Oxford and Harvard, spent years as a successful litigator specializing in complex corporate matters, and volunteered his time on a variety of consequential civil rights cases. 

Mangi's nomination is also historic. He would be the first Muslim American to serve on a federal appellate court. During his confirmation hearing at the Judiciary Committee, Mangi was repeatedly subjected to Islamophobic smears. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Kennedy (R-LA) asked Mangi if he supported Hamas or celebrated 9/11. 

The pretext for these questions was Mangi's role from 2019 to 2023 as an advisory board member for the Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights, which is part of Rutgers Law School. Republicans spent much of the hearing connecting Mangi to events he did not attend and people he had never met. The Anti-Defamation League released a statement condemning the "inappropriate and prejudicial treatment" Mangi received. 

These claims were distorted further by a right-wing dark money group, the Judicial Crisis Network, which produced ads blasting "antisemite Adeel Mangi" and falsely implied that Mangi "blamed America for the September 11 terrorist attacks." 

The Islamophobic tropes appear to be having the desired impact. On March 14, CNN reported that "[m]ultiple Democratic senators and their staff have privately warned the White House in recent days that there does not appear to be enough votes in the Senate to confirm Adeel Mangi."

Will Senate Democrats cave to an Islamophobic smear campaign? Judd Legum · Mar 18 Read full story

Democrats control the Senate, and judicial nominations cannot be filibustered. Therefore, at least two members of the Democratic caucus, which consists of 48 Democrats and three independents, are currently opposed to Mangi's nomination. 

Senators have the right to vote for or against any nominee for any reason. But two or more members of the Democratic caucus appear to be trying to sink Mangi's nomination while keeping their opposition a secret. This secrecy thwarts accountability and is antithetical to the democratic process. 

This is where you come in. 

Eleven members of the Democratic caucus are on the record supporting Mangi because they voted to advance his nomination as members of the Judiciary Committee. Earlier this week, Popular Information contacted the other 40 members of the Democratic caucus and asked a simple question: Do you support the nomination of Adeel Mangi?

We received a grand total of one response. “I am strongly in favor of Adeel Mangi’s nomination and will vote to confirm him. I think he has been subjected to a vicious smear campaign,” Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) told Popular Information.

There are still 39 members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have not taken a public position on Mangi. 

But while many Senators seem to be unwilling to answer this question from journalists, we think there is a chance that Popular Information readers — many of whom are constituents of these Senators — will have better luck. If you want to participate, here is what to do:

1. If you are a United States citizen, check this spreadsheet to see if you are represented by one of the members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have not taken a position.

2. If you are represented by one of these Senators, contact them. You can email your Senator using this tool. Or you can call your Senator. All Senate phone numbers begin 202-224-____. You can look up the last four digits of your Senator here. 

3. Politely ask if the Senator supports or opposes Adeel Mangi's nomination. (EXAMPLE: Hello, my name is X, and I'm a constituent of Senator Y. I am contacting you to find out whether or not the Senator supports the nomination of Adeel Mangi.)

4. If you receive a response, fill out this form with the details. 

That's it. Whether or not you are able to participate, we will report back on the results in a future edition of Popular Information.