WATCHDOG: Trump Judicial Nominee Jennifer Mascott Played Key Role in Undermining Sexual Assault Survivors

Washington, D.C. – Today, Accountable.US is releasing a new report detailing President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Jennifer Mascott’s disturbing role in dismantling protections for survivors of sexual assault on college campuses. While serving as Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice during the first Trump administration, Mascott defended a new Title IX rule that systematically dismantled protections for survivors of sexual assault and harassment. 

“Jennifer Mascott’s history of making it harder for victims to report heinous acts of sexual assault should send a chill down the spine of every American,” said Accountable.US President Caroline Ciccone. “Since retaking office, Donald Trump has handpicked loyalists who will put his extreme ideology over impartiality and the rule of law. Mascott’s record of siding with abusers to undermine the rights of victims makes that abundantly clear.”

The rule forced live cross-examination by attackers’ lawyers, created higher evidence standards making cases extremely difficult to prove, permitted schools to refuse investigating off-campus incidents, eliminated the 60-day timeline for resolving cases, required disclosing survivors’ identities even when they requested anonymity, and allowed direct questioning about victims’ sexual histories. 

When major victim advocacy groups sued to strike down these provisions, Mascott represented the Department of Education against organizations dedicated to protecting sexual assault survivors. When confronted with “Mary Doe,” a student sexually assaulted after the rule took effect whose university refused basic protections like moving her away from her alleged attacker, Mascott argued the student had no legal standing—claiming this wasn’t the policy’s fault but the university’s “misreading” of guidelines. Even as the judge expressed concerns that the rule would eliminate critical evidence like rape kits unless hospital staff could be cross-examined, Mascott defended cross-examination requirements as “tried and tested.” Mascott argued the rule could only be struck down if “there is no set of circumstances under which the regulation would be valid,” setting an impossibly high bar.

###