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:

We need to start raising significantly more in donations from our online community of readers, especially from those who read Mother Jones regularly but have never decided to pitch in because you figured others always will. We also need long-time and new donors, everyone, to keep showing up for us.

In "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, how brutal it is to sustain quality journalism right now, what makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there, and why support from readers is the only thing that keeps us going. Despite the challenges, we're optimistic we can increase the share of online readers who decide to donate—starting with hitting an ambitious $300,000 goal in just three weeks to make sure we can finish our fiscal year break-even in the coming months.

Please learn more about how Mother Jones works and our 47-year history of doing nonprofit journalism that you don't find elsewhere—and help us do it with a donation if you can. We've already cut expenses and hitting our online goal is critical right now.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

We need to start raising significantly more in donations from our online community of readers, especially from those who read Mother Jones regularly but have never decided to pitch in because you figured others always will. We also need long-time and new donors, everyone, to keep showing up for us.

In "It's Not a Crisis. This Is the New Normal," we explain, as matter-of-factly as we can, what exactly our finances look like, how brutal it is to sustain quality journalism right now, what makes Mother Jones different than most of the news out there, and why support from readers is the only thing that keeps us going. Despite the challenges, we're optimistic we can increase the share of online readers who decide to donate—starting with hitting an ambitious $300,000 goal in just three weeks to make sure we can finish our fiscal year break-even in the coming months.

Please learn more about how Mother Jones works and our 47-year history of doing nonprofit journalism that you don't elsewhere—and help us do it with a donation if you can. We've already cut expenses and hitting our online goal is critical right now.

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