The White House Is Appointing Anti-Woman Judges

The White House Is Appointing Anti-Woman Judges

The White House Is Appointing Anti-Woman Judges

Counsel Don McGahn is giving a pass to nominees with terrible records on sexual violence and harassment.


The sordid and repellent Rob Porter abuse scandal at the White House has focused an intense spotlight on the role of White House counsel Don McGahn, and rightly so. According to reports, McGahn knew, possibly for months, about domestic-violence allegations against Staff Secretary Porter and allowed him to continue on as a member of President Trump’s inner circle with only an interim security clearance.

McGahn’s silence in the face of such serious allegations speaks volumes about his values and priorities. And that’s why it is so disturbing that McGahn has a leading role in vetting the people this administration is nominating for federal judgeships.

Thus far in his administration, President Trump has nominated more than 50 people for federal judgeships. An alarming number of them have expressed disdain for, or ignorance of, the realities that women face in confronting sexual violence, sexual harassment, obstacles to reproductive rights, and discrimination at work and in school. Several have actively worked to make it harder for women to obtain redress when they are wronged.

Don Willett, appointed to a Fifth Circuit seat, formerly served on the Texas Supreme Court, where he ruled to limit the compensation that a victim of workplace sexual harassment can collect from an employer. Another Fifth Circuit nominee, Kurt Engelhardt, currently serves as a judge on a Louisiana district court. There, he has established a pattern of preventing sexual-harassment claims from being heard by a jury, going out of his way to rule that allegations do not rise to the level of what is considered objectively hostile conduct. A Seventh Circuit nominee, Michael Brennan, praised the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Morrison, which struck down significant portions of the Violence Against Women Act.

A Court of Federal Claims nominee, Damien Schiff, once brought a lawsuit challenging the application of federal Title IX anti-sex discrimination rules to high-school sports, in which he made the astonishing claim that “Congress had absolutely no evidence before it enacted Title IX that there was sexual discrimination going on in high schools.” A Trump nominee now on the Sixth Circuit, John Bush, opposed women’s admission into the Virginia Military Academy. The military-style education at VMI, he wrote, “does not appear to be compatible with the somewhat different developmental needs of most young women.” Oregon nominee Ryan Bounds once warned against overly zealous responses to campus rape allegations, thus: “Expelling students is probably not going to contribute a great deal toward a rape victim’s recovery; there is no moral imperative to risk egregious error in doing so.”

Meanwhile, some nominees have been dismissive when confronted with the issue of gender discrimination in employment. Both Willett and Brennan have written skeptically about such discrimination, expressing disbelief that a “glass ceiling” exists.

On the reproductive-rights front, it is not surprising that many nominees have expressed staunch opposition to abortion. These are, after all, the nominees of a Republican president who pledged to make opposition to the Roe v. Wade ruling a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments. But even viewed through that lens, the picks are extreme. A Tennessee nominee, Mark Norris, co-sponsored a resolution in his state that would ban abortion even if necessary to protect the mother’s life or in cases of rape or incest. Kyle Duncan—nominated for a seat on the Fifth Circuit—is not just anti-abortion; he is anti-contraception. Duncan has written scathingly that the government treats contraception as “the sacrament of our modern life,” criticizing the idea that birth control is necessary for “‘the good life,’ health and economic success of society, particularly women.” Notably, Duncan was lead counsel for Hobby Lobby in the case that opened a door for corporations to cite religious grounds in denying their workers insurance coverage for birth control.

Taken together, the records of these and many other nominees lead to an inescapable conclusion: This White House, including the top lawyer in charge of judicial nominations, hardly bats an eye when it comes to archaic or even hostile attitudes toward the well-being of women. That became painfully obvious when the Rob Porter mess bubbled to the surface, but Porter has left government service. The federal judges who decide how the law will treat women if they are battered, abused, harassed, or discriminated against will be with us for decades.

Thank you for reading The Nation

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read, just one of the many incisive, deeply-reported articles we publish daily. Now more than ever, we need fearless journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media.

Throughout this critical election year and a time of media austerity and renewed campus activism and rising labor organizing, independent journalism that gets to the heart of the matter is more critical than ever before. Donate right now and help us hold the powerful accountable, shine a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug, and build a more just and equitable future.

For nearly 160 years, The Nation has stood for truth, justice, and moral clarity. As a reader-supported publication, we are not beholden to the whims of advertisers or a corporate owner. But it does take financial resources to report on stories that may take weeks or months to properly investigate, thoroughly edit and fact-check articles, and get our stories into the hands of readers.

Donate today and stand with us for a better future. Thank you for being a supporter of independent journalism.

Ad Policy