“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

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis and more, subscribe to Mother Jones' newsletters.

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.” 

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

Thank you!

We didn't know what to expect when we told you we needed to raise $400,000 before our fiscal year closed on June 30, and we're thrilled to report that our incredible community of readers contributed some $415,000 to help us keep charging as hard as we can during this crazy year.

You just sent an incredible message: that quality journalism doesn't have to answer to advertisers, billionaires, or hedge funds; that newsrooms can eke out an existence thanks primarily to the generosity of its readers. That's so powerful. Especially during what's been called a "media extinction event" when those looking to make a profit from the news pull back, the Mother Jones community steps in.

The months and years ahead won't be easy. Far from it. But there's no one we'd rather face the big challenges with than you, our committed and passionate readers, and our team of fearless reporters who show up every day.

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

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.