NAWL finds Judge Kavanaugh to be "Not Qualified"

October 2, 2018

NAWL finds Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to be "Not Qualified" for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

AUGUST 2018 -- With respect to personal integrity, our interviews of several dozen litigants who had appeared before Judge Kavanaugh, former law clerks, former and current colleagues, and others who have interacted with him during the last three decades persuaded the Committee that Judge Kavanaugh has the highest reputation for integrity and generally demonstrates a sound judicial temperament. Further, the Committee finds Judge Kavanaugh to be supportive of women professionally, including hiring a diverse pool of law clerks. As to professional competence, our review of Judge Kavanaugh’s writings, which entailed a review of over 300 opinions, concurrences, and dissents written by Judge Kavanaugh, as well as articles and books he authored or coauthored, led the Committee to conclude that Judge Kavanaugh’s professional competence is consistent with that required for service on the Supreme Court.


Following this extensive review, the Committee ultimately concludes, however, that Judge Kavanaugh is “not qualified” because he has failed to demonstrate the requisite “commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.” Specifically, the Committee is troubled by key decisions and other statements by Judge Kavanaugh, which the Committee believes reflects a propensity to deviate from established law as it relates to the protection of women’s rights, particularly their reproductive rights. 


Read the full statement>




OCTOBER 2, 2018 -- NAWL amends the letter previously filed with the Senate Judiciary Committee in August 2018.

After examining his writings, interviewing individuals who have interacted with Judge Kavanaugh over the last three decades, NAWL found him “not qualified” under its standards because he failed to demonstrate the requisite “commitment to women’s rights or issues that have a special impact on women.” After considering the testimony provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 27, 2018, the Committee also has serious concerns regarding Judge Kavanaugh’s integrity, judicial temperament, and overall fitness for the position of Supreme Court Justice.


Read the full amendment statement>


April 30, 2026
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais , ruling 6–3 that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In reaching that decision, the Court narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may be used to remedy racial vote dilution, despite prior findings that Louisiana’s earlier maps likely infringed on the voting rights of Black residents. This decision marks a serious setback for voting rights and democratic participation. For nearly six decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our legal system’s effort to confront and remedy structural discrimination in the electoral process. By restricting the tools available to address unequal representation, the Court’s ruling makes it harder to correct long standing disparities in who has a voice in our elections. In a dissent read aloud from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court’s decision undermines one of the last effective tools for protecting fair representation. Describing the ruling’s impact on the Voting Rights Act, she wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter,” unable to fulfill its core purpose. She highlighted that a democracy cannot function as promised when the law prevents meaningful remedies for electoral systems that lock some communities out of political power. NAWL is committed to a democracy that works for everyone, supported by a legal system that recognizes discrimination and acts to correct it. As lawyers, judges, advocates, and scholars, we understand that voting rights are foundational to all other rights. NAWL will continue to engage its members on the implications of this decision through education and dialogue. We invite NAWL members to continue this important conversation by attending our session “ Louisiana v. Callais : Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy” at NAWL’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago on July 22–23 . Hear from Jessica Ellsworth (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Hogan Lovells), Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund), Franita Tolson (Dean of USC Gould School of Law), and Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy at Brennan Center for Justice). Our expert panel will examine the implications of this decision and its future impact on voting rights and the rule of law.
March 30, 2026
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
January 1, 2026
Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
December 17, 2025
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
Columns of a classical building with ornate carvings against a clear blue sky.
October 7, 2025
Perkins v. State of Montana
Stone steps leading up to a building with columns, in natural light.
September 10, 2025
Metropolitan School District of Martinsville v. A.C.
More Posts