On Friday, Sept. 28, following the Senate Judiciary hearing at which both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Brett Kavanaugh testified, the ACLU decided to depart from its usual policy in order to oppose the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
It was not a decision we took lightly. As a matter of policy, the ACLU does not endorse or oppose presidential nominations. We have made exceptions, but those exceptions are few and far between. In our 98-year history, we have only opposed four Supreme Court nominees.
How did the ACLU reach the decision to oppose the Kavanaugh nomination?
This decision was made by the ACLU’s board of directors, a body of 69 people representing all of the ACLU’s 54 affiliates. The board held a special meeting following the Sept. 28 testimony, which was attended by 62 board members. After a discussion lasting several hours, the board agreed, by a vote of 55 to 7, on the following resolution:
“The ACLU opposes the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. There are credible allegations that Judge Kavanaugh has engaged in serious misconduct that have not been adequately investigated by the Senate. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s credible testimony, subsequent allegations of sexual misconduct, the inadequate investigation, and Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony at the hearing lead us to doubt Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
“This is not a decision taken lightly. We cannot remain silent under these extraordinary circumstances about a lifetime appointment to the highest court of the land. The standard for such an appointment should be high, and the burden is on the nominee. That burden is not met as long as there are unresolved questions regarding the credible allegations of sexual assault.”
Is this a partisan decision?
No. The ACLU remains committed to our traditional principles of nonpartisanship. Board members were clear that if the same concerns were raised about a Democratic Supreme Court nominee — inadequately investigated credible allegations of sexual assault supported by credible testimony and met by nominee testimony showing angry partisanship — we would similarly oppose that nominee.
Does this decision change ACLU policy?
No. ACLU policy is not to support or oppose any candidate for elected or appointed office, including Supreme Court justices. This means that we do not support or oppose Supreme Court nominees based on our predictions about how they would vote if confirmed. This has been our policy for most of the 98 years since we were founded. In our entire history, we have previously opposed only the nominations of William Rehnquist, Robert Bork, and Samuel Alito. Most recently, we did not oppose John Roberts or Neil Gorsuch.
LISTEN TO SUSAN HERMAN EXPLAIN THE BOARD'S VOTE ON AT LIBERTY
In 1987, the ACLU adopted a special exception to our general rule of non-opposition with respect to Supreme Court justices, but we rescinded that policy in 2006 because we wanted to avoid judging future justices and we wanted to avoid either being or appearing partisan. The decision in this instance, not made on the basis of ideology, is an exception to our general practice of not opposing candidates. This decision was based on unique circumstances presented by credible allegations of sexual assault and a display of partisan rancor, leading us to doubt Judge Kavanaugh’s fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, a job that demands the highest integrity because of the finality of the court’s rulings and the fact that justices enjoy life tenure.
Why doesn’t the ACLU routinely take positions on Supreme Court nominees?
The ACLU works in some 14 areas of civil rights and civil liberties, and judges may be predictably sympathetic on some issues and not others. Justice Anthony Kennedy, for example, made history with his support for same-sex marriage in our Obergefell case, but he voted against the ACLU in all five of our Supreme Court cases last term, including our challenge to the Muslim travel ban. We hope that once confirmed to the Supreme Court, even a judge who had seemed predictably anti-civil liberties might heed our arguments and take the broader perspective of a final arbiter — as Justice Kennedy did, for example, in voting not to overrule Roe v. Wade in 1992, in recognizing marriage equality, and in striking down the death penalty for juvenile offenders.
What about due process for Judge Kavanaugh?
A Supreme Court confirmation hearing is not a trial. We would not support a criminal conviction of Judge Kavanaugh or anyone else without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But because of the unique nature of a Supreme Court appointment, we think it is fair for Judge Kavanaugh to have to meet the burden of dispelling the serious concerns about his fitness raised by Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony. His self-serving, evasive, and often demonstrably untruthful testimony at the hearing only reinforced those concerns.
Why not wait until after the FBI investigation has concluded?
On the basis of Dr. Ford’s credible and powerful testimony, and Judge Kavanaugh’s unpersuasive response, we believe that there was sufficient evidence to oppose as of the completion of the hearing. To say that we should not oppose Judge Kavanaugh unless and until a full investigation finds additional corroborating evidence suggests that Dr. Ford’s testimony is not sufficient even to raise serious doubts in the context of a confirmation hearing.
The laws of many states used to require corroboration of a woman’s testimony of sexual assault in criminal cases. States changed those laws to drop corroboration requirements, even in criminal cases, in order to ensure that the testimony of women would not be routinely discounted. The old laws were justified by the notion that a high burden was necessary to protect (male) defendants against women who fabricate allegations; the reform of those laws was justified by the reality that women who had suffered sexual assaults were not being taken seriously and therefore were frequently unwilling to come forward with their complaints. And that was in criminal trials, where the burden of proof on the prosecution is appropriately high.
If a full and fair investigation were to refute Dr. Ford’s credible allegations, our board members could reconsider their position. But absent persuasive evidence undermining Dr. Ford’s account, our conclusion was that there are sufficient doubts to warrant opposing Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation for life to the highest court in the land.
Every day across the nation, the ACLU is called on to defend all the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There's never been a more important time to support the ACLU and our effective work to protect civil liberties. If you like what you read, help us continue to speak freely by .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.