Path to the Supreme Court
No modern justice traveled a straighter Washington road to the Court, and none arrived through a wilder storm. When Brett Kavanaugh first came before the Senate, for a court of appeals seat in 2006, Senator Richard Durbin dismissed the resume as the point: he was 'the Zelig or Forrest Gump of Republican politics. You show up at every scene of the crime,' Durbin said, 'whether it is Elián González or the Starr Report, you are there.' The gibe was fair as biography; the capital's partisan wars supplied most of his early employment. As prophecy it failed completely. The operative of the 1990s has become, by the plain arithmetic of votes, the least contrarian member of the modern Court, and the justice most often inside its majorities. Reconciling the road, the storm, and the record is this chapter's work.
Brett Michael Kavanaugh was born in Washington, D.C., on February 12, 1965, an only child. His father, Everett Edward Kavanaugh Jr., was a lawyer who spent two decades as president of the cosmetics industry's trade association; his mother, Martha, taught history in the District's public high schools, took her law degree at American University in 1978, and became a Montgomery County prosecutor and then a Maryland circuit judge. 'My introduction to the law came at our dinner table when she practiced her closing arguments,' he said on the night of his Supreme Court nomination; her trademark line, he recalled, was 'use your common sense, what rings true, what rings false.' He was a basketball captain and football player at Georgetown Preparatory School, class of 1983, two years ahead of a student named Neil Gorsuch (§113); one Jesuit high school now holds two of the Court's nine seats.
At Yale College he majored in history and wrote for the Yale Daily News; at Yale Law School he was a notes editor of the journal, graduating in 1990. Three clerkships followed, with Judge Walter Stapleton of the Third Circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth, and, after a year in the Solicitor General's office, Justice Anthony Kennedy (§104) in October Term 1993, a chambers year he shared with Gorsuch, who was clerking that same term. Then came the decade Durbin would later inventory. From 1994 he served Kenneth Starr's Office of Independent Counsel, leading the reopened investigation of Vincent Foster's death to the same conclusion of suicide the first inquiry had reached, and serving as a principal author of the Starr Report's grounds for the impeachment of President Clinton. He made partner at Kirkland & Ellis between tours, where the Durbin inventory was earned literally: he represented Elián González's Miami relatives without fee in 2000 and worked the Florida recount for the Bush campaign that fall, and joined the new administration in January 2001, first in the counsel's office and from 2003 as staff secretary, the aide through whose hands every paper reaching the President's desk must pass. In 2004 he married Ashley Estes, the President's personal secretary; they have two daughters, Margaret and Liza.
Bush first nominated him to the District of Columbia Circuit, to Laurence Silberman's seat, on July 25, 2003. The nomination sat for nearly three years, twice returned without a vote, while Democrats argued that a political operative was being made a judge; it was in those hearings that Durbin delivered his line. Confirmed 57–36 on May 26, 2006, he spent twelve years on the D.C. Circuit and wrote some three hundred opinions, taught at Harvard Law School at the invitation of its then dean, Elena Kagan (§112), and built the shadow record that mattered most: dissents addressed to a future Court. His 2011 dissent in Heller II argued that gun laws must be judged 'based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny,' the method the Supreme Court itself adopted in Bruen a decade later. His dissent in PHH v. CFPB, on the President's power to remove agency heads, prevailed in substance in Seila Law. By the time Justice Kennedy announced his retirement on June 27, 2018, the former clerk was the obvious heir, and Trump named him on July 9.
Then came September. Christine Blasey Ford, a research psychologist, alleged that at a small gathering in 1982, when she was fifteen and Kavanaugh seventeen, he had pinned her to a bed, groped her, and covered her mouth; he denied the allegation absolutely. On September 27, 2018, both testified before the Judiciary Committee in a session watched by tens of millions. Ford, asked for her strongest memory, answered: 'Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense'; asked her degree of certainty, she said '100 percent.' Kavanaugh answered: 'I categorically and unequivocally deny the allegation against me by Dr. Ford,' and read an opening statement of unprecedented heat for a judicial nominee, calling the previous two weeks 'a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election,' fear about his record, and 'revenge on behalf of the Clintons,' adding that 'what goes around comes around.' A supplemental FBI inquiry lasting a week reported to senators and satisfied the decisive votes; cloture carried 51–49; and on October 6, 2018, he was confirmed 50–48, Joe Manchin the lone Democrat in favor and Lisa Murkowski voting present, the narrowest margin for a justice since Stanley Matthews's one-vote confirmation in 1881. What happened in 1982 the public record cannot establish; the allegation was never corroborated to the Senate's satisfaction and never withdrawn, and this chapter records the transcript rather than adjudicating it. That evening, as protesters beat on the Court's bronze doors, Chief Justice Roberts (§109) administered the constitutional oath and the retired Justice Kennedy the judicial oath, and the clerk now held his teacher's seat.
On the Supreme Court
The justice who emerged from the century's angriest confirmation turned out to be its most agreeable member, in the technical sense of the word. His first signature opinion, Flowers v. Mississippi in June 2019, reversed the conviction of a Black death-row prisoner tried six times by a prosecutor who had struck Black jurors at every opportunity, a seven-to-two majority assigned to the Court's newest member. The same spring, in Apple v. Pepper, he wrote for a five-justice majority made up of himself and the four justices then called liberal, letting an antitrust suit against Apple's App Store proceed. The next year, dissenting in Bostock v. Clayton County from the holding that Title VII protects gay and transgender employees, he closed with a paragraph that became better known than his argument: millions of gay and lesbian Americans 'have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit,' he wrote, and 'can take pride in today's result.' The pattern held from the start: conservative votes, delivered with an institutionalist's handshake.
The numbers describe a justice built for majorities. By the Supreme Court Database's coding, as computed for this site, he dissented in 6.2 percent of the cases of his first seven terms, against a contemporary average of 19.4; no colleague's rate is lower, and the three chapters now written in this series mark the poles of the modern Court, Jackson (§116) dissenting at 23 percent, Kavanaugh at 6. His circuit-era ideology score (JuDJIS +0.38) sits below Barrett's and above Gorsuch's among the sitting justices' measured circuit records. After Justice Ginsburg's death and Justice Barrett's (§115) arrival moved the Court's center, the agreement statistics settled him beside the Chief Justice at the median, and in the annual counts he sat at or near the top of the in-the-majority table. In SCOTUSblog's statistics for the 2025 term, he and Roberts tied for first at 95 percent in the majority.
His characteristic instrument is the concurrence that narrows, reassures, and forecasts. In Ramos v. Louisiana he set out a full framework for when precedent should fall, and in Dobbs, where his was the sixth vote, he wrote separately to stress limits, including that states may not bar their residents from traveling to obtain an abortion elsewhere. In NCAA v. Alston his concurrence closed with the sentence 'The NCAA is not above the law,' that did as much as the unanimous opinion to end amateurism's legal shelter. In United States v. Rahimi his long concurrence on originalism and precedent read as a lecture to both flanks; the shelf below carries a law review's answer to it. And when the Court unanimously turned away the mifepristone challengers in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in June 2024, the opinion holding that the plaintiff doctors lacked standing, preserving the abortion pill's availability without reaching the merits, was his.
This site's coding of the 2025 term shows the middle seat at full employment. He wrote six opinions of the Court, including the term's two final-day six-to-three decisions, West Virginia v. B.P.J. and National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, along with Monsanto v. Durnell, Exxon Mobil v. Corporacion Cimex, the unanimous Ellingburg v. United States, and Pitchford v. Cain, five to four, with the Chief Justice and the three liberal justices joining him. His principal dissent came in the term's biggest case: in Learning Resources v. Trump, the tariff decision, he wrote for himself, Thomas (§106), and Alito (§110) against the Chief Justice's majority. Even his opposition, that term, was filed in the company of the Court's senior conservatives.
Seven terms in, the storm and the record coexist without touching. The 2018 hearings remain, for a large part of the public, the whole of what is known about him; the docket since records a justice whose defining trait is the pursuit of the achievable majority, more Kennedy than Scalia (§103) in temperament if not in vote. The open question his next decades will answer is the one his method invites: whether a jurisprudence of the middle seat amounts to a jurisprudence, or only to a position. He continues to serve.
The Voting Record
How Kavanaugh voted in the 435 cases the Supreme Court Database records from the 2018 term through the 2024 term, using that database’s classification of each vote as liberal or conservative. The gold tick on each bar is the rate for the other justices sitting on those same cases.
Where Kavanaugh sat among the colleagues on the same bench — and whether that Court divided clearly enough for the question to have an answer — is laid out Court by Court. See this Court →
How conservative is Kavanaugh? The full ideology profile: the record measured, the bloc mapped, and the 13 cases where Kavanaugh broke from it.
Source · The Supreme Court Database (Spaeth, Epstein, Nelson, Martin, et al.) · how these figures are made
Key Decisions
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
2022Holding · (Concurring) The Constitution is 'neutral' on abortion; the decision does not permit barring interstate travel for the procedure and does not, in his view, threaten other precedents.
Role · Kavanaugh joined the majority overruling Roe and wrote separately to stress limits.
A window into the reassurance-seeking conservatism that makes Kavanaugh so often the pivotal vote.
Read the opinion →Ramos v. Louisiana
2020Holding · (Concurring) A criminal conviction requires a unanimous jury; a precedent should be overruled only after weighing how wrong it was, the reliance it created, and the consequences of keeping it.
Role · Kavanaugh concurred, setting out a framework for stare decisis.
His most substantial writing on when the Court should overrule precedent — a question at the heart of the modern Court.
Read the opinion →Flowers v. Mississippi
2019Holding · A prosecutor's repeated exclusion of Black jurors across six trials of the same defendant violated the Constitution.
Role · Kavanaugh wrote for the Court.
A notable early majority, applying the rule against racial discrimination in jury selection.
Read the opinion →FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
2024Holding · The doctors and associations challenging FDA's regulation of mifepristone lack standing; the challenge is turned away without reaching the merits.
Role · Kavanaugh wrote for a unanimous Court.
Two years after casting Dobbs's sixth vote he wrote the opinion that preserved the abortion pill's availability, a pairing that captures the institutionalist profile of his Court years.
Read the opinion →Go Deeper
Brett Kavanaugh reached the Supreme Court in 2018 through one of the most bitterly contested confirmations in American history, and has since settled into a role as a pivotal, institutionally cautious conservative — frequently the median vote on a nine-member Court whose center of gravity he helped shift. A product of the Washington legal establishment — Yale, a Kennedy (§104) clerkship, service in the George W. Bush White House, and a dozen years on the D.C. Circuit — he was nominated by Donald Trump to succeed Justice Kennedy. His confirmation erupted when Christine Blasey Ford testified that he had sexually assaulted her when both were teenagers; Kavanaugh categorically denied the allegation in angry testimony of his own, a further FBI review reported no corroboration, and the Senate confirmed him 50–48, the closest vote for a justice in more than a century. The hearings remain fiercely disputed and are the subject of opposing book-length accounts. On the bench he has often aligned with Chief Justice Roberts (§109) in seeking narrower paths, making him a frequent swing vote within the conservative majority. Begin with the dueling confirmation books, read fairly against each other, then his own opinions on precedent and the Court's role.
The Bookshelf
An investigative account of Kavanaugh's life and confirmation by two New York Times journalists, sympathetic to the questions raised about his conduct and candor. Drawing on interviews across his years at Georgetown Prep, Yale, and Washington, it examines the Blasey Ford allegation and others and the culture that shaped him. It is one side of a bitterly contested story and should be read alongside the opposing account below; together they frame a confirmation that the country has never stopped arguing about. Portfolio/Penguin. (Read critically, and in tandem with Hemingway and Severino.)
The conservative account of the 2018 confirmation battle — Ryan Lovelace's defense of Kavanaugh against the allegations, the counterpoint to the two investigative books already on the shelf. Regnery.
The conservative counter-narrative, by a journalist and a legal activist who defend Kavanaugh and portray the opposition to him as a coordinated campaign of character assassination. Sympathetic to the nominee and sharply critical of his accusers and the process, it marshals its own reporting to argue that the allegations were uncorroborated and the hearings a low point for the Senate. Read against The Education of Brett Kavanaugh, it lets the reader weigh two irreconcilable tellings of the same events and reach an informed judgment. Regnery. (One side of a contested story; read in tandem with Pogrebin and Kelly.)
Kavanaugh's separate concurrence in Dobbs, and a revealing statement of his self-understanding as a justice at the Court's center. Joining to overrule Roe, he wrote separately to insist that the Constitution is 'neutral' on abortion and to signal limits — that the decision did not permit punishing women who travel for abortions or bar Congress from acting, and did not, in his view, threaten other precedents. Critics doubted the reassurances; supporters read them as characteristic caution. Read it as a window into the incremental, reassurance-seeking conservatism that makes Kavanaugh so often the pivotal vote.
Kavanaugh's most substantial writing on stare decisis, appended to the decision requiring unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials. Concurring in the overruling of a prior case, he set out a framework for when precedent should yield — how grievously wrong a decision was, the reliance it has generated, and the real-world consequences of keeping or discarding it. Written to reconcile respect for precedent with a willingness to overrule, it is essential for understanding how he approaches the recurring question of what to do with rulings he thinks mistaken, a question at the heart of the modern Court. Read it as his theory of when the past gives way.
The most substantial scholarly treatment of Kavanaugh's jurisprudence to date — reading his Rahimi concurrence as a programmatic defense of originalism's legitimacy. On a shelf otherwise made entirely of confirmation-battle books, the one study of the judge rather than the nomination. Free full text.
The Reading Path
A researched route through the literature — in order.
- 1.Pogrebin and Kelly, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh — for one account of the contested confirmation
- 2.Hemingway and Severino, Justice on Trial — for the opposing account — read the two together
- 3.Dobbs concurrence — for the median justice's reassurance-seeking conservatism
- 4.Ramos v. Louisiana concurrence — for his theory of when precedent gives way
Where the Papers Are Kept
Kavanaugh continues to serve, and his judicial papers are not open to researchers. His extensive service in the George W. Bush White House generated records now held in that administration's archives — documents whose withholding was itself a flashpoint of his confirmation — and his dozen years on the D.C. Circuit are reflected in that court's opinions. His Supreme Court jurisprudence lives in the published reports. The Federal Judicial Center and Oyez provide the biographical and case record. Visit →
Ideas for Further Research
- The confirmation the country never settled. The 2018 hearings produced two irreconcilable narratives — corroborated wrongdoing and unfair character assassination — that still divide Americans and shape how they view the Court. Read the opposing book-length accounts against the public record and the testimony, and study the episode as a case in how contested facts, partisan process, and the stakes of a lifetime appointment interact, without assuming the conclusion either side urges.
- The new median. With Kennedy (§104) gone and the Court moved right, Kavanaugh often occupies the pivotal middle of the conservative majority, joining Roberts (§109) in favoring narrower rulings. Track the cases where his vote has set the outcome or the breadth of a decision, and ask what it means for American law that its swing vote is now well to the right of where O'Connor (§102) and Kennedy once stood.
- Precedent in a Court willing to overrule. Kavanaugh has written more than most about when stare decisis should yield, even as he joined to overrule Roe. Test his multi-factor framework against the decisions of his tenure, and ask whether it genuinely disciplines the choice to discard precedent or chiefly supplies a vocabulary for overruling cases a majority already disfavors. Seat lineage: Anthony Kennedy §104 → Brett Kavanaugh → (still serving).