Judicial Philosophy and Methodology

Brett Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy combines elements of constitutionalism and conservatism, with methods closely aligned to textualism. His 2008 dissent on the D.C. Circuit emphasized starting with the "constitutional text and original understanding," indicating a constitutionalist approach. However, his comments during Obamacare oral arguments suggested a more conservative inclination towards judicial restraint.

Kavanaugh's stance on the nondelegation doctrine, as seen in Gundy v. United States, aligns him with constitutionalists like Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. This position could potentially reshape modern governance by shifting power back to Congress from executive agencies.

In criminal procedure, Kavanaugh sides with a strict interpretation of the Sixth Amendment's "confrontation clause," favoring defendants' rights over procedural convenience for prosecutors.

Key aspects of Kavanaugh's judicial approach:

• Skepticism about legislative history, aligning with textualism
• Tendency to limit executive overreach
• Skepticism of the Chevron doctrine
• Emphasis on constitutional text and original understanding
• Potential balance with respect for precedent on contentious issues

While Kavanaugh emphasizes constitutional text and original understanding, he may balance this with respect for precedent on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, potentially retaining landmark decisions even if deemed incorrect interpretations.

Significant Supreme Court Cases

Gundy v. United States highlighted Kavanaugh's stance on the nondelegation doctrine, suggesting a potential shift in how legislative power is distributed between Congress and administrative agencies.

Moore v. U.S. demonstrated his constitutionalist leanings while scrutinizing statutory details, influencing tax jurisprudence by aligning taxation policies with constitutional principles.

Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine showcased Kavanaugh's balance between judicial restraint and adherence to constitutional norms in matters of reproductive rights.

American Hospital Ass'n v. Becerra reflected Kavanaugh's skepticism about granting unchecked power to administrative agencies, advocating for thorough judicial oversight of agency actions.

Case	Key Focus
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez	Concrete harm for Article III standing
Jones v. Mississippi	Textualist approach to Eighth Amendment
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project	Oversight of executive actions
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck	Free speech and state action distinction

These cases illustrate Kavanaugh's judicial reasoning, showcasing his originalist methodology balanced with textualism, and his impact on the Supreme Court's direction in preserving constitutional principles.

Nondelegation Doctrine and Administrative Power

The nondelegation doctrine, central to Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy, asserts that Congress cannot transfer its legislative authority to administrative entities without clear guidance. Kavanaugh's interest in reviving this doctrine aligns him with constitutionalists like Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.

"Administrative agencies should not 'create' law but implement Congress's directives."

Kavanaugh's jurisprudence advocates for clearer boundaries between legislative and administrative functions, aiming to prevent administrative overreach. His dissenting opinion in the SeaWorld case critiqued the Labor Department's regulatory overreach, exemplifying his view on administrative limitations.

His skepticism about the Chevron doctrine further illustrates his cautious approach to administrative power. By questioning Chevron deference, Kavanaugh aims to reaffirm Congress's primary role in lawmaking and limit the administrative state's reach.

Potential impacts of Kavanaugh's approach:

1. Retraction of broad administrative authority
2. Requirement for Congress to draft clearer, more detailed statutes
3. Reinforcement of the legislative branch's role
4. Curtailment of executive overreach
5. Promotion of accountability in policy decisions

Kavanaugh's approach promotes accountability by ensuring elected representatives, rather than unelected bureaucrats, shape significant policy decisions. This aligns with his commitment to originalist principles and the constitutional framework envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

The potential recalibration of power dynamics between Congress and the Executive Branch could fortify the constitutional separation of powers, fostering greater legislative clarity and limiting administrative overreach.

Criminal Procedure and Defendants' Rights

Kavanaugh's approach to criminal procedure and defendants' rights balances constitutional fidelity with textualism. His opinions often reflect a concern for maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system while upholding constitutional protections.

Kavanaugh's interpretation of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees defendants the right to a fair trial, aligns with the Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington. This ruling reinforced the importance of cross-examination in the confrontation clause, strengthening defendants' rights to challenge evidence presented against them.

In cases involving sentencing, Kavanaugh adheres to constitutional principles that reinforce the role of the jury. His judicial philosophy aligns with precedents like Alleyne v. United States, which require facts increasing mandatory minimum sentences to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Cautious regarding expansion of prosecutorial powers
• Preference for clear evidence
• Opposes erosion of established constitutional safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures

In cases addressing federal statutes, Kavanaugh commits to narrow and precise interpretations of legislative texts. This approach helps prevent prosecutorial overreach and ensures criminal liabilities are clearly defined by law.

Kavanaugh's decisions collectively shape a criminal justice system that adheres to constitutional mandates, ensuring procedural rights are protected and prosecutorial powers are confined. His judicial philosophy influences how criminal defendants' rights are safeguarded within the American judicial system.

Front-Burner Issues: Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Religion

Brett Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy is evident in his approach to contentious issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious freedom. His interpretation of the Constitution, rooted in an originalist perspective, has implications for future rulings on these matters.

Abortion

Kavanaugh has referred to Roe v. Wade as "precedent upon precedent." However, his judicial record suggests a more complex view that aligns with conservative thinking. In cases like Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Kavanaugh has demonstrated judicial restraint, emphasizing that ideological objections do not constitute a justiciable controversy.¹

Same-Sex Marriage

On same-sex marriage, Kavanaugh's views on Obergefell v. Hodges reflect nuance. His emphasis on original meaning and precedential respect suggests he might view Obergefell as a controversial application of substantive due process. However, his dedication to precedent indicates he may be less inclined to challenge this decision directly.

Religious Freedom

In religious freedom cases, Kavanaugh has consistently shown a willingness to uphold strong protections under the First Amendment. His dissent in Priests for Life v. Department of Health and Human Services showcases his readiness to accommodate religious objections within the bounds of federal law.²

"Kavanaugh's approach to these issues is characterized by respect for judicial precedent combined with a belief in the original understanding of the Constitution."

This suggests that while he may not challenge existing landmark decisions directly, his influence will likely be seen in rulings that align more closely with conservative principles, particularly those enhancing state powers and protecting religious freedoms.

Ethics, Public Perception, and Court Dynamics

Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court in October 2018 was marked by accusations of sexual misconduct, which he denied. This controversy has had a lasting effect on public perception of his role on the Court.

Public opinion of Kavanaugh remains divided along partisan lines. Conservatives often view his appointment as a necessary counterbalance, while liberals frequently see his confirmation as undermining the Court's credibility and impartiality.

Despite these controversies, Kavanaugh has worked to establish himself as a committed justice. He has issued multiple concurring opinions, articulating his judicial reasoning and seeking to build a coherent body of jurisprudence.

Court Dynamics

• Alliance with Chief Justice John Roberts often steers the Court towards a conservative but institutionalist trajectory
• Interactions with more conservative justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas influence the Court's ideological balance
• Occasional decisive votes with liberal justices in close cases, reflecting commitment to judicial independence

Kavanaugh's actions demonstrate his effort to transcend the partisanship that characterized his confirmation. As the Supreme Court addresses significant cases shaping American life, Kavanaugh's influence remains substantial.

His participation amid ethical scrutiny and polarized opinions exemplifies the complex realities of serving on the nation's highest court. Through this, Kavanaugh continues to impact how the Supreme Court interprets the United States Constitution, reflecting both the power and the scrutiny inherent in such a pivotal role.