Over the course of his first term, President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees often faced intense questioning from Senate Democrats before being confirmed to the bench. Now, a Republican senator is treating a Trump nominee to the third degree over the conservative attorney’s biblical worldview.

Justin Olson, an attorney specializing in Title IX litigation and known for representing former Kentucky University athlete Riley Gaines in challenging National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) policies permitting biological men to compete in women’s sports, was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. He faced the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, where a series of sermons Olson delivered on sexual morality and marriage over a decade ago became a point of contention for Senator John Kennedy (R-La.). Kennedy pointed to a 2022 sermon in which Olson, an ordained elder in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, referred to “transgenderism, homosexuality, [and] fornication” as “sexual perversions.”

“I don’t have a lot of time, counselor. Tell me what you meant by that,” Kennedy queried Olson. “Do you believe that fornication is a form of sexual perversion?”

“Senator, my personal views, my religious views, what I was speaking at that time were for the edification of the people that I was preaching to,” Olson replied. The attorney explained that he had been preaching on the Old Testament, specifically the story of the King Uzziah (recounted in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles), who was “stricken with leprosy” after he attempted to take on the role of the High Priest for himself. “As a judge, sitting here today,” he continued, “my obligation is to apply the rule of law and the Constitution.” He clarified, “The doctrine of the church that I was at does state that fornication is a sin,” defining fornication as “any sexual act outside of the bounds of marriage.”

“So you believe pre-marital sex is a sexual perversion?” Kennedy asked. Olson replied, “Again, my personal views, as many have said before, I won’t comment, but the doctrine of the church that I belong to…” Kennedy interrupted, “But is it your doctrine?” He repeated the question multiple times. Olson eventually responded, “Senator, my personal views, as a judge, are not the object of what I would rule upon.”

Kennedy also queried Olson on a sermon he delivered on the subject of marriage. “You said that God ‘has called wives to be subject to their husbands’ … and to ‘serve the good of your husband and support his calling.’ … Did you say that?” the senator asked. “What did you mean by that?”

“In Christian marriage, as explained by the Apostles, I was describing our church’s understanding of what Christian marriage ought to look like,” Olson answered. Kennedy asked again, “And you believe that Christian marriage provides that women have to be subservient to their husbands?” Olson pointed out, “Senator, I think I was quoting a passage in Ephesians. … Those are not my words, those are words in the Scriptures…” Kennedy interrupted to ask, “Do you believe them?” Olson simply replied, “Senator, I believe every word of the Bible.”

Another line of questioning centered on references Olson had made to individuals with physical or developmental disabilities while preaching on marriage in 2015. According to Kennedy, Olson had suggested that such disabilities may “prevent” those individuals from entering into “the robust marriage that we’re called to.” The senator asked, “You believe folks with handicaps and physical disabilities should not be able to marry?” Olson explained, “No, senator. I was explaining the meaning of Christ’s words that some, to use Christ’s terms, are eunuchs by birth [Matthew 19:12] and explaining the meaning of that verse in the context of those who are called to singleness, and that there are various reasons why individuals don’t get married.”

Olson continued, “I was using that example as an illustration of why some don’t get married, not as a kind of reason why someone shouldn’t. It was illustrative of the condition in which some find themselves, but certainly not, in any stretch of the imagination, suggesting that they couldn’t or shouldn’t, merely that in some cases they don’t.”

The Washington Stand reached out to Kennedy’s press team for comment or clarification regarding his line of questioning, but at the time of publication has not yet received a response.

During the first Trump administration, progressive Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) grilled Russell Vought, then appointed to the role of Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and now serving as Director of both the OMB and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), on comments he made regarding Muslim “theology.” After Vought’s Christian-identified alma mater, Wheaton College, fired a professor for making a social media post supporting Islam, Vought defended the school’s decision in an essay, writing at one point, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

Sanders characterized Vought’s essay as “indefensible, it is hateful, it is Islamophobic, and it is an insult to over a billion Muslims throughout the world,” arguing that the OMB appointee risked dragging the U.S. “backwards” into an era of “discrimination.” He hounded Vought on the matter during the latter’s confirmation hearing. “Do you believe that statement is Islamophobic?” he asked. Vought replied, “Absolutely not, senator… I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith.” Sanders continued to ask, “Do you think that people who are not Christians are condemned?” While emphasizing the “centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation,” Vought affirmed, “I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs.” Numerous Christian organizations warned that the left-wing senator’s questions potentially violated the law, veering dangerously close to establishing a “religious test” for public office, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.

When now-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017, the late Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) questioned Barrett on her Catholic faith, particularly as it related to abortion. “Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that dogma and law are two different things, and I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different,” Feinstein said at the time. “And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Barrett, “You refer to ‘orthodox Catholics.’ What’s an orthodox Catholic?” He asked, “Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?”

Barrett, for her part, described herself as a “faithful Catholic” and confirmed that “my personal Church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.” She added later, “From beginning to end, in every case, my obligation as a judge would be to apply the rule of law…”

Article VI of the Constitution requires that senators, representatives, state legislators, and “all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”