Newly Released Emails Show Kavanaugh Had a Dim View of a Government Affirmative Action Program

The Supreme Court nominee called the regulations a “naked racial set-aside.”

President George W. Bush watches the swearing-in of Brett Kavanaugh as judge for the DC Court of Appeals in 2006.Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP Photo

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

On the third day of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) released previously confidential emails from Kavanaugh’s time working in the George W. Bush White House. One email chain shows that Kavanaugh was involved in helping craft a Supreme Court brief in which the Bush administration supported a government affirmative action program. But it also makes clear that Kavanaugh took a dim view of the government’s efforts to support minority businesses in federal contracting. 

Adarand Constructors v. Pena was a landmark 1995 Supreme Court decision. In it, the court took a big swipe at the federal government’s programs to give preferences in contracting to minority companies. The case was brought by a white-owned Colorado Springs company that had been denied a Department of Transportation subcontract, despite coming in with the lowest bid, because the government gave preference to a minority-owned company.

Adarand sued, arguing that it had been unconstitutionally discriminated against. It lost in the lower courts and then appealed to Supreme Court, which overturned the lower courts and required the government to set strict limits on its use of race-based affirmative action programs in contracting. The case went back to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider in light of the new guidelines from the Supreme Court. The 10th Circuit ruled in favor of the Department of Transportation, and in 2001, Adarand asked the high court to revisit the issue, even though by then, the government had radically changed the way it handled minority business contracting to comply with the Supreme Court decision. 

Kavanaugh elaborated on his personal views about the affirmative action program in a March 2001 email in which he ran through various options for the administration and the solicitor general’s office to approach the case. He suggested that the solicitor general refuse to defend the program altogether—a move that would have been highly unusual at the time. He recognized that White House pressure on the solicitor general to take a particular position would have been considered unseemly, and he encouraged the White House to defer to the judgement of the Justice Department and the solicitor general on the assumption that they’d be hostile to affirmative action anyway.

Much to the surprise of civil rights leaders—and to the dismay of many of the administration’s conservative allies—the Bush administration took the same position the Clinton administration had and asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Department of Transportation’s minority contracting regulations. In a 2001 email chain with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, his deputy Timothy Flanigan, and Noel Francisco (then an associate White House counsel and now President Donald Trump’s solicitor general), Kavanaugh weighed in on the government’s brief in the case. While he made a few suggestions for improving the government’s arguments, it was clear he was skeptical of the government’s affirmative action program, which he predicted the court would strike down. He wrote:

The fundamental problem in this case is that these DOT regulations use a lot of legalisms and disguises to mask what in reality is a naked racial set-aside. I have no doubt that Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy will realize as much in short order and rule accordingly…I assume O’Connor will so rule as well, although that is less certain.

Kavanaugh proved to be a bad Supreme Court prognosticator: The court punted on the case altogether, ruling after oral arguments that Adarand’s petition for the court to hear the case had been “improvidently granted.” Essentially, the court found that Adarand was arguing an entirely different case thanks to the changes the government had implemented since 1995, and that as a result, it didn’t have standing to challenge the government’s race-based programs.

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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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