“Notorious” RBG Credits Brett Kavanaugh for Making Female Law Clerks the Majority

Between 2005 and 2017, twice as many men became clerks as women.

Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh squeaked through his confirmation hearing last year after being accused by Christine Blasey Ford of sexual assault during a high school party. Women’s groups vigorously fought his confirmation and warned that his presence on the court would pose a significant threat to hard-fought legal rights for women.

So it’s no small irony that this year, thanks solely to Kavanaugh, for the first time ever, the majority of Supreme Court law clerks are female. And perhaps it’s also no small irony that on Friday, feminist icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg publicly gave Kavanaugh kudos for his hiring. In an otherwise deadly dull speech she gave to the 2nd Circuit Judicial Conference in New York, Ginsburg said, “Kavanaugh made history by bringing on board an all-female law clerk crew. Thanks to his selections, the Court has this Term, for the first time ever, more women than men serving as law clerks.”

The Supreme Court was an entirely male bastion until 1944, when Lucile Loman broke through and clerked for Justice William O. Douglas. Since then, women have remained in the minority well into the 21st Century. A National Law Journal study found that between 2005 and 2017, twice as many men became clerks as women. The man Kavanaugh replaced, Justice Anthony Kennedy, had a particularly egregious record on this front: Between 2005 and 2017 he hired six times as many men as clerks as women.

Ginsburg’s speech was otherwise news-free, despite her tantalizing dips into some of the most contentious cases on the docket this term that have yet to be decided. For instance, she mentioned Department of Commerce v. New York involving a citizenship question on the US Census, in which new evidence has recently surfaced indicating that the Justice Department lied to the Supreme Court when it claimed such a question needed to be included on the census to help enforce the Voting Rights Act.

In fact, the evidence showed, the Trump administration wanted to add the question to help bolster the power of white Republicans. The evidence reached the court in May after the hard drives of a Republican redistricting strategist surfaced in an unrelated lawsuit, more than a month after the case had been argued. Ginsburg didn’t provide a glimpse into what the justices might be doing with the new information. 

The court still has 27 undecided cases on the docket for this term, and the last day scheduled for the release of opinions is June 24. But the only indication Ginsburg gave of how the term might end were cryptic comments suggesting that the court was sharply divided on the most controversial cases. She noted that so far this term, the court has issued few contentious 5-4 opinions where the justices were sharply divided between conservatives and liberals. But she warned that those numbers may not be indicative of much, since the most high-profile cases often don’t get decided until the very last days of the term. “Given the number of most-watched cases still unannounced,Ginsburg said. “I cannot predict that the relatively low sharp divisions ratio will hold.” 

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight 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

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.