Trump Nominates Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court

The conservative judge has been called the “Forrest Gump of Republican politics.”

Brett Kavanaugh testifies at a Senate hearing on his nomination to be US Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit. CQ Roll Call/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he is nominating Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to fill the seat of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh, a 53-year-old judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, was long rumored to be a top choice for the job, and he brings a reliably conservative track record to the bench.

If confirmed, Kavanaugh won’t do much to diversify the Supreme Court. He was born and raised inside the Beltwayā€”in Washington, DC, and the tony suburb of Bethesda, Maryland, respectively. He would be the fourth sitting justice to have graduated from Yale Law School and the sixth Catholic on the current bench. A former Kennedy clerk, he is a longtime active member of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal outfit that has played a key role in Trumpā€™s judicial appointments.

Kavanaugh first emerged as a rising GOP star in 1994, when he joined the legal team of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, a former solicitor general for whom heā€™d worked during the George H. W. Bush administration. Starrā€™s investigation into an Arkansas real estate deal by Bill and Hillary Clinton morphed into a prurient examination of the former presidentā€™s affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. Kavanaugh led the investigation into the suicide of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, which gave birth to conspiracy theories that the Clintons killed him. Kavanaugh was later a primary author of the Starr Report, which read like a steamy romance novel with lines like, ā€œOn all nine of those occasions, the President fondled and kissed her bare breasts.ā€

In those heady days, Kavanaugh traveled in a circle of budding GOP legal eagles, including Fox News host Laura Ingraham, current Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar, and clerks for conservative Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Kavanaughā€™s presence in right-wing political circles landed him a cameo in Blinded by the Right, a book by conservative operative turned Democratic fundraiser David Brock. Brock wrote that during the Whitewater investigation into the Clinton Arkansas real estate deal, he once attended an event at Ingrahamā€™s house to watch one of Clintonā€™s State of the Union addresses. When the cameras panned to first lady Hillary Clinton during the speech, Brock said he witnessed Kavanaugh mouth the word ā€œbitch.ā€  

In an interview, Brock says Kavanaugh in those days ā€œwas a very recognizable type in Washington: a young Federalist Society lawyer on the make in the conservative movement. He thought his ticket was helping bring down the Clintons.ā€

Kavanaugh so frequently inserted himself into high-profile political battles that during his confirmation hearing for his DC Circuit seat, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called him the ā€œForrest Gump of Republican politics.ā€

In 1999, Kavanaugh represented two members of Congress who filed a brief in a Supreme Court case supporting a New Mexico school districtā€™s effort to maintain student-led prayers at football games. (The court found the prayers unconstitutional.) The following year, he got involved in the case of EliĆ”n GonzĆ”lez, the young Cuban boy who came to the United States after his mother drowned trying to bring him to the country, prompting an epic custody fight between his father in Cuba and his relatives in Miami. Kavanaugh worked pro bono for GonzĆ”lezā€™s Miami relatives in their vain appeals to keep the boy in the United States. 

That same year, Kavanaugh represented former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in his fight to overcome constitutional hurdles to his controversial school voucher program that would direct public money to private religious schools. And when the 2000 election came down to some hanging chads in Florida and a contentious recount, Kavanaugh was there, too, working on George W. Bushā€™s legal team.

After the Supreme Court ruled in Bush’s favor, essentially awarding him the presidency, Kavanaugh landed a coveted spot in the White House counselā€™s office, where he helped Bush select judicial nominees. Eventually, he became one of them. In 2003, Bush nominated Kavanaugh to a seat on the influential DC Circuit, often considered a stepping stone to the Supreme Court. Three current justices have served there, as does Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obama’s nominee for the high court whose confirmation was blocked by Senate Republicans.

Democrats aggressively opposed Kavanaughā€™s nomination, in part because of his political rĆ©sumĆ©, but also because he had never tried a case and had very little experience with criminal law. Durbin observed during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing that he was nominated with ā€œless legal experience than virtually any Republican or Democratic nominee in more than 30 years. Of the 54 judges appointed to this court in 111 years, only oneā€”Kenneth Starrā€”had less legal experience. That is a fact.ā€

The American Bar Association, which initially rated Kavanaugh ā€œwell qualified,ā€ downgraded that assessment to ā€œqualifiedā€ after interviewing people who had worked with him. In its report, the ABA noted, ā€œOne judge who witnessed the nomineeā€™s oral presentation in court commented that the nominee was ā€˜less than adequateā€™ before the court, had been ā€˜sanctimonious,ā€™ and demonstrated ā€˜experience on the level of an associate.’ā€ His nomination stalled for three years before he was finally confirmed in 2006.

Lawyer and court watcher Adam Feldman recently wrote on his blog Empirical SCOTUS that in his 12 years on the DC Circuit, Kavanaugh has penned opinions ā€œalmost entirely in favor of big businesses, employers in employment disputes, and against defendants in criminal cases.ā€ Kavanaugh made a name for himself as a staunch opponent of the Obama administrationā€™s environmental agenda. His dissents in cases involving the Environmental Protection Agency often seemed to sway the Supreme Court.

He has supported the Trump administration’s efforts to prevent a pregnant immigrant girl from obtaining an abortion, backed the use of military commissions to keep Guantanamo Bay prisoners out of federal courts, and attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warrenā€™s pet project, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In 2016, he wrote a 101-page majority opinion for a three-judge panel decrying the consumer bureauā€™s ā€œmassive, uncheckedā€ power and predicting that the Supreme Court would ultimately find its existence unconstitutional. The decision struck down the part of the law requiring that the president have cause before removing the agencyā€™s director and that would have allowed the president to fire the director at will. But the decision was overturned a year later by the full DC Circuit. In a dissent in that case, Kavanaugh made an impassioned argument for protecting the rights of financial services providers, an argument dismissed by the majority as an ā€œunmoored liberty analysisā€ that failed to take into account the individual liberty of the victims of those financial services corporations.

The future Supreme Court docket could have special relevance to Trump, and that may have worked in Kavanaugh’s favor. Trump, after all, has suggested that he has the power to pardon himself, a theory thatā€™s never been tested but one that might become less theoretical should special counsel Robert Mullerā€™s investigation into Russiaā€™s meddling in the 2016 election ensnare Trump in a criminal case. The Supreme Court could ultimately decide whether Trump is right about the extent of his pardon power.

Kavanaugh seems likely to be a supporter of broad presidential powers. In 2011, the DC Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, in a prelude to what the Supreme Court would later do. In a dissent, Kavanaugh laid out a radical interpretation of the Constitution: that if the president takes issue with an existing law, he can simply declare it unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. ā€œUnder the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional,ā€ Kavanaugh wrote, ā€œeven if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.ā€

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate