Before Ketanji Brown Jackson Came Pauli Murray’s Letter to Nixon

In February, Ketanji Brown Jackson made history by being the first Black woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. In accepting the nomination, Judge Jackson paid homage to Constance Baker Motley, the first Black woman to serve as a federal judge, with whom Judge Jackson shares a birthday.

Listening to Judge Jackson’s remarks, there was another great lawyer I wished were alive to see this achievement: Pauli Murray.

In 1971, Murray wrote a letter to President Nixon purporting to apply for a seat on the Supreme Court. “I am a Negro woman 60 years old,” Murray wrote. (Though Murray identified as a woman in the letter, Murray often expressed a male gender identity; not knowing what pronouns Murray would use today if given a choice, I use Murray’s name instead.) The letter continued:

“It should be of passing interest that I represent the largest group of minority status in the United States — namely, female. The Court would be more representative of the composition and interests of the population of the United States if a qualified woman were appointed. My application is to forestall the popular misconception that no qualified women applied or are available. “

One of the greatest legal minds of the 20th century, Murray was not widely known outside legal circles until recently. While still a law student at Howard University, Murray argued that separate was inherently unequal, work that formed the basis for the landmark victory in Brown v. Board of Education. Murray was among the first to theorize that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under law, the premise of the Brown decision, could be used to challenge laws that discriminated based not only on race, but also on sex.

That work formed the foundation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s advocacy during her years as director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, as Ginsburg herself acknowledged repeatedly. Murray also served the ACLU on its national Board of Directors and as part of an advisory committee guiding its women’s rights work and was a co-founder of the National Organization for Women. The letter to President Nixon recounts none of these accomplishments (some of which admittedly did not happen until later), condensing them into a single sentence: “I am a Constitutional lawyer whose specialty is human rights.”

Murray knew, of course, that one does not “apply” to be a justice of the Supreme Court. That was an unspoken rule, alongside another implicit requirement: being a white man. Today, there have been 115 justices, 108 of them white men.

At the time of Murray’s letter, only white men had been tapped to serve on the high court. In fact, a single Black woman — Constance Baker Motley — had been nominated to any federal court in the country. Judge Motley faced unique barriers as a Black woman. President Lyndon B. Johnson initially hoped to nominate her to a seat on the prestigious Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated by Thurgood Marshall when he was elevated to the Supreme Court. Marshall had been confirmed three times by that point — first as Solicitor General and then again for each court on which he sat. But senators objected to the idea of Judge Motley, a Black woman, in such an influential post. Without key votes, President Johnson nominated her for a district court judgeship instead. Judge Motley faced obstacles on the bench as well, as litigants questioned her ability to be impartial and called for her recusal in civil rights cases. That Murray decided to write to President Nixon in the first place reflects the ugly history of discrimination faced by Black women like Judge Motley.

Yet Murray’s letter manages to hold complexity. It’s simultaneously cutting and deeply funny, opening with a referral to Murray’s cardiologist as proof of physical heartiness. The letter goes on to point out that Murray’s nomination would sail through the vetting process — because Murray’s activism had already been subject to FBI surveillance.

Murray’s many gifts to us include not only legal brilliance but humor and joy. I often tell my team in the Women’s Rights Project to think like Pauli Murray. This Women’s History Month, my hope is that we can laugh like Murray did, too.

Read Murray’s full letter below:

https://twitter.com/irin/status/1486448684879708160

Stay informed about our work

Trump's Attempt to Unilaterally Control State and Local Funding is Dangerous, Dumb, and Undemocratic

The Trump administration has not been subtle in its desire to use federal funding for political punishment. Whether threatening to cut off grants to sanctuary cities, to block financial assistance to states that push back against the president’s demands, or to freeze all federal grants and loans for social services across the country, Trump and his allies want us to believe they can wield the federal budget like a weapon. The reality is that the administration’s ability to withhold or condition funding is far more limited than they let on. The Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and long-standing federal law stand firmly in the way of this brazen abuse of presidential power. Trump’s Attempted Funding Freeze? Blocked Immediately A week into his second administration, Trump attempted to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans that fund a vast array of critical services already approved by Congress. If allowed to go into effect, this unprecedented and far-reaching...

Documents Reveal Confusion and Lack of Training in Texas Execution

As Texas seeks to execute Carl Buntion today and Melissa Lucio next week, it is worth reflecting on the grave and irreversible failures that occurred when the state executed Quintin Jones on May 19, 2021. For the first time in its history — and in violation of a federal court’s directive and the Texas Administrative Code — Texas excluded the media from witnessing the state’s execution of Quintin Jones. In the months that followed, Texas executed two additional people without providing any assurance that the underlying dysfunction causing errors at Mr. Jones’ execution were addressed. This is particularly concerning given that Texas has executed far more people than any other state and has botched numerous executions. The First Amendment guarantees the public and the press have a right to observe executions. Media access to executions is a critical form of public oversight as the government exerts its power to end a human life. Consistent with Texas policy, two reporters travelled t...

The Supreme Court Declined a Protestors' Rights Case. Here's What You Need to Know.

The Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case, Mckesson v. Doe , that could have affirmed that the First Amendment protects protest organizers from being held liable for illegal actions committed by others present that organizers did not direct or intend. The high court’s decision to not hear the case at this time left in place an opinion by the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, that said a protest organizer could be liable for the independent, violent actions of others based on nothing more than a showing of negligence. Across the country, many people have expressed concern about how the Supreme Court’s decision not to review, or hear, the case at this stage could impact the right to protest. The ACLU, which asked the court to take up the case, breaks down what the court’s denial of review means. What Happened in Mckesson v. Doe? The case, Mckesson v. Doe , was brought by a police officer against DeRay Mckesson , a prominent civil rights activi...

Search This Blog