•  
  •  
 

San Diego Law Review

Document Type

Article

Abstract

For more than two centuries, the highest judicial body in the United States systematically excluded women. In 2026, just over five percent of all justices have been women, and only two have been women of color. No woman or minority has ever served as chief justice.

This Article is the first to delve into the extraordinary and often overlooked journeys of minority women who were shortlisted—and, in two historic instances, selected—for the United States Supreme Court. It traces a long arc of exclusion and partial progress, beginning with Sandra Day O’Connor’s groundbreaking confirmation in 1981 as the first female justice and the overlooked parallel would-be nomination of Amalya Kearse, the first Black woman to serve as a federal appellate judge, who appeared on the same shortlist as O’Connor. Decades later, Sonia Sotomayor’s 2009 appointment as the first Latina justice and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s 2022 confirmation as the first Black woman to join the Court marked profound yet belated milestones.

The Article begins by exploring the crucial gateway to the Supreme Court: the shortlist. We define and dissect the shortlisting mechanism and detail the methodology underlying our research, providing context for the unique intersectional complexities faced by women of color. The Article then reveals—for the first time—a comprehensive list of minority women officially considered by presidents for the Supreme Court. By spotlighting these trailblazing figures and the systemic barriers they faced, this Article lays bare the long-standing practice of “shortlisting without selecting” and the sociopolitical forces that shaped their delayed inclusion. In doing so, this Article not only reclaims and retells their stories individually and collectively, but also sheds light on the unique and enduring inequalities in the judicial selection process and beyond. The credentials of women of color who have moved from shortlisted to selected are exceptional; we have taken to referring to them as supreme, i.e., “supreme selection.”  This history demonstrates that the persistent absence of women of color from positions of power cannot plausibly be explained by a shortage of qualified candidates; rather, the shortlisting process itself exposes recurring patterns of tokenism, political instrumentalization, repeated consideration without selection, and heightened credential demands.  Finally, the Article offers critical observations and forward-thinking recommendations, urging legal institutions to confront the structural biases embedded in judicial selection and, by extension, in all high-level vetting processes. The Article not only fills a crucial gap in Supreme Court history but also challenges us to rethink the narratives of power and inclusion at the highest levels of American law and other professions.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS