July X, 2018

Dear Chairman Grassley and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:

On behalf of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), America’s largest civil rights organization
working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) equality, we write to
oppose the nomination of Ryan Bounds to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Only
nominees with exceptional intellectual ability, distinguished experience in law, and a
temperament that would enable them to make decisions fairly and with an open mind should be
confirmed for lifetime appointments to the bench. Bounds’ tolerance of homophobic vandalism
and tolerance of sexual assault at Stanford University demonstrate that he does not possess the
ability to fairly judge cases involving the rights of LGBTQ Americans and will not judge fairly
in cases of sexual assault and rape. For these reasons, HRC urges you to oppose the nomination
of Bounds to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Following an instance of homophobic vandalism at Stanford University, the University forced

athletes and fraternity members to face mandatory sensitivity training.1 Bounds took it upon
himself to write an editorial for The Stanford Review, “Lo! A Pestilence Stalks Us,” filled with
sarcasm and veiled homophobia.2 Bounds paints the athletes and fraternity members that
drunkenly destroyed an LGBTQ pride statute as victims who were wrongfully called bigots and
criticized the LGBTQ outcry as a “divisive” and “overly-sensitive” response.3 Additionally,
Bounds ends this part of his editorial by stating that it was wrong for the university to donate
money to the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Community Center after this attack.4 Bounds will not
be able to rule impartially when presented cases regarding LGBTQ Americans.

Bounds went on to write an additional editorial piece for The Stanford Review, “Reasonable
Doubts,” that opposed Stanford University’s consideration of a policy that lowered the standard
for “beyond a reasonable doubt” in sexual assault cases, stated that there is “nothing inherently
wrong with the University failing to punish an alleged rapist – regardless his guilt,” and argued

1
Ryan Bounds, Lo! A Pestilence Stalks Us, The Stanford Review (Oct. 10, 1994),
https://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Lo-a-Pestilence-Stalks-Us.pdf.
2
Id.
3
Id.
4
Id.

HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN | 1640 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
P 202-423-2881 | F 202-423-2861 | HRC@HRC.ORG



that it was “ill-advised” for the University to punish students for rape allegations.5 Bounds makes
it clear that he sympathizes with alleged rapists and rapists found guilty, given the punishments
that the administration places on them.6 When writing about the impact on the victim, Bounds
stated “expelling students is probably not going to contribute a great deal toward a rape victim’s
recovery.”7 Finally, Bounds states that the University should not punish students for rape
allegations at all and, in fact, should stay out of the situation completely because the purpose of
university is merely “to allow an atmosphere in which students can work with and learn from
experienced scholars and from each other.”8 Bounds’ troubling and sympathetic view of alleged
rapists indicates that he will not be able to judge fairly in cases regarding sexual assault.

Nominees for lifetime appointment should have a demonstrated commitment to full equality
under the law for all Americans and should meet the highest standards of integrity. In light of
Bounds’ record, HRC believes that Bounds fails these tests. The Ninth Circuit often decides
important cases and controversies addressing critical questions of American democracy and
liberty. The addition of Bounds to that bench would endanger those fundamental rights and
expose litigants to the risk that their cases will not be decided in accordance with established
constitutional and legal principles. Accordingly, we urge you to vote against his lifetime
appointment to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions or need more information, please
contact XX at X.X@hrc.org or XX XX at X.X@hrc.org.

Sincerely,

5
Ryan Bounds, Reasonable Doubts, The Stanford Review (Oct. 17, 1994),
https://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Reasonable-Doubts.pdf.
6
Id.
7
Id.
8
Id.

HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN | 1640 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
P 202-423-2881 | F 202-423-2861 | HRC@HRC.ORG