WA State House Candidate Signed A Letter Praising Brett Kavanaugh — And Then Another Letter Supporting His Investigation

Over the weekend, urbanist advocacy group Tech 4 Housing posted a video on social media, pointing out what had been circulating Seattle’s political chattering class for days: 46th Legislative District candidate Will Dreher signed a letter praising conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh, who he previously clerked under, as President Donald Trump prepared to elevate him to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018.

Such a close connection to an ardent conservative could prove politically damaging in the deep blue district — Kavanaugh went on to join the Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe v. Wade and issued a series of decisions broadly reviled by even the normiest of Democrats. And it certainly complicates Dreher’s own narrative as a prosecutor of Jan. 6 rioters, hellbent on resisting authoritarianism, to have in any way participated in one of the major turning points to usher that very authoritarianism in.

“[Dreher] put his access to a clubby group of elite law ahead of criticizing the end of democracy,” said Suresh Chanmugam on behalf of Tech 4 Housing, which endorsed Ron Davis in the 46th LD. “That might be fine for being a corporate lawyer, but not for representing one of the most progressive jurisdictions in the country.”

But in a phone interview with The Burner, Dreher argued his episode with Kavanaugh is more nuanced than critics might suggest — after all he was one of very few former clerks to sign a second letter supporting an investigation into Kavanaugh after allegations of sexual assault came to light. Dreher painted a picture of himself not as a closet Republican or kiss-up opportunist, but rather someone who eventually, and in quiet ways, stood up to one of the most powerful people in the country at his own professional risk. 

Only time will tell if the voters will see this Kavanaugh controversy as a line in the sand or if they will accept Dreher's explanation and evaluate him based on his platform. 

According to Dreher, Kavanaugh sought him out for the prestigious clerkship under his wing at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He told The Burner that law schools typically do not encourage students to be choosy with these opportunities — though his critics argued Dreher, who graduated top of his class at Harvard, would be better situated than most to find another gig. Dreher took the offer, working under the conservative judge from August 2013 to July 2014. 

When asked if he made a mistake clerking for Kavanaugh, Dreher told The Burner, “I sure wish that things had played out different, I sure wish that I had made a different choice.” 

The Burner consulted several law school graduates. Some sympathized with Dreher’s decision — to reject such a clerkship would be seen as disrespectful and may limit his future opportunities, something that would take outsized conviction for a young person already bought into the institution of the U.S. legal system. 

Others said things along the lines of “absolutely fuck that.” Critics argued working with a conservative judge shows poor judgement, one that prioritizes his own advancement over his purported progressive values. And Dreher’s detractors noted Washingtonians have plenty of those types working for them in Olympia already. 

But Dreher’s opposition is narrowed in on a letter he and a group of other former Kavanaugh clerks signed onto, expressing their deep “admiration and fondness” for the judge as Trump sought to appoint him in the summer of 2018. They sent the letter about two months before the women who accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault brought these allegations to the general public’s attention. 

It is customary for clerks to sign on to these types of letters. But what made this one slightly different, as Dreher lawyerly noted, is that the letter never technically endorsed Kavanaugh’s appointment. 

To outsiders, that may seem like a weaselly explanation, but some former clerks and others from the legal world told The Burner that typically clerks offer a very clear endorsement in these letters. For example, when Neil Gorsuch’s clerks rallied around him, they wrote that they all “strongly support his confirmation as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court.” 

By contrast, the letter Dreher signed stopped short of directly urging Senators to confirm Kavanaugh: “These qualities have made Judge Kavanaugh a wonderful mentor, boss, and friend to all of us. With them, he would ably and conscientiously serve his country as a Supreme Court Justice.” 

Still, Dreher conceded that it was “naive” for him to expect the general public to interpret the letter as anything but an endorsement. 

This subtle internal disagreement became clearer when he and two other former clerks published a second letter, after allegations of Kavanaugh’s sexual assault and misconduct became public. 

“We write to clarify that, like many Americans, we have been deeply troubled by those allegations and the events surrounding them and were encouraged by the initiation of a formal FBI investigation, which we believe is warranted. We hope, for the good of everyone involved, that this investigation will be independent and thorough," the second letter read.

At the time, a blog called “Above The Law,” called this letter “exceedingly rare.” The blog quoted a law professor’s reaction on Twitter: “For people who aren’t part of the elite legal world, it’s hard to understand just how rare it is for former clerks to speak out against the interests of their former boss, in even the slightest way. The professional incentives all run strongly against it.”

Dreher told The Burner that he has not heard from Kavanaugh since signing that letter. Typically, a clerk can expect a lifelong mentorship from a judge and access to their network. Dreher argued this second letter shows him making a tough choice to do the right thing at the expense of opportunity.

His critics remain unconvinced. 

Chanmugam from Tech 4 Housing said this second letter did not go far enough. Chanmugam argued Dreher should have clearly retracted the endorsement, not simply support an investigation that a legal insider should have known would have been a sham under Trump’s administration. At the time, other Kavanaugh supporters more forcefully retracted their endorsement following the allegations. 

Dreher explained that he and the other signatories did not explicitly retract an endorsement because they had never intended the first letter as one in the first place — an explanation that may strike voters as either principled nuance or evasive legal parsing, depending on how much grace they are willing to extend. But there's still an element of preservation potentially at play: Formally calling for the Senate not to confirm Kavanaugh would basically guarantee Dreher would never argue a case before the Supreme Court as no serious client would hire someone who publicly feuded with a sitting justice, other legal sources argued to The Burner.

Whatever his motive, what is no longer ambiguous, Dreher said, is his current view of Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence.

He told The Burner he “disagree[s] and abhor[s]” the outcome in all the split decisions Kavanaugh has authored or joined — with the exception of the few split decisions in which he joined the liberal justices and his other former boss, Justice Elena Kagan.