fbpx
Wikipedia

Amy Coney Barrett

February 15, 2024

"Justice Barrett" redirects here. For other uses, see Justice Barrett (disambiguation).

Amy Vivian Coney Barrett (born January 28, 1972) is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] The fifth woman to serve on the court, she was nominated by President Donald Trump and has served since October 27, 2020. Barrett was a U.S. circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 2017 to 2020.

Amy Coney Barrett
Official portrait, 2021
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Assumed office
October 27, 2020
Nominated byDonald Trump
Preceded byRuth Bader Ginsburg
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
In office
November 2, 2017 – October 26, 2020
Nominated byDonald Trump
Preceded byJohn Daniel Tinder
Succeeded byThomas Kirsch
Personal details
Born
Amy Vivian Coney

(1972-01-28) January 28, 1972 (age 52)
New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.
Spouse
Jesse Barrett
​
(m. 1999)​
Children7
EducationRhodes College (BA)
University of Notre Dame (JD)
Amy Coney Barrett's voice
Amy Coney Barrett's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on her nomination to the Supreme Court
Recorded October 12, 2020

Barrett graduated from Rhodes College before attending Notre Dame Law School, earning a J.D. with distinction in 1997. She then clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman and Justice Antonin Scalia. In 2002, Barrett joined the faculty at Notre Dame Law School, becoming a professor in 2010. While serving on the federal bench, she has continued to teach civil procedure, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation.[2][3][4][5]

On September 26, 2020, Trump nominated Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States.[6][7][8] Her nomination was controversial because the 2020 presidential election was only 38 days away and Senate Republicans had refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland during an election year in 2016.[9] The next month, the U.S. Senate voted 52–48 to confirm her nomination, with all Democrats and one Republican in opposition.[10]

Described as a protégée of Justice Antonin Scalia,[11][12][13] Barrett supports textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation.[14][15][16] She is generally considered to be among the Court's conservative bloc.

Early life and education

Amy Vivian Coney was born in 1972 in New Orleans, Louisiana, to Linda (née Vath) and Michael Coney.[17][18] The eldest of seven children, she has five sisters and a brother. Her father worked as an attorney for Shell Oil Company, and her mother was a high school French teacher and homemaker. Barrett has Irish and French ancestry.[19][20] Her maternal ancestors were from Ballyconnell, County Cavan, Ireland, while there is also Irish lineage among her father's ancestors. Her great-great-grandparents emigrated from France to New Orleans.[21] Her family is devoutly Catholic, and her father is an ordained deacon at St. Catherine of Siena Parish in Metairie, Louisiana, where she grew up.[22][23]

Barrett attended St. Mary's Dominican High School, an all-girls Roman Catholic high school in New Orleans.[24] She was student body vice president of the school and graduated in 1990.[25] After high school, Barrett attended Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, where she majored in English literature and minored in French. She considers herself "somewhat fluent" in French, but with a Louisiana accent.[26] Barrett graduated in 1994 with a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, and was inducted into Omicron Delta Kappa and Phi Beta Kappa.[27] In her graduating class, she was named most outstanding English department graduate.[28]

Barrett then attended Notre Dame Law School on a full-tuition scholarship. She was an executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review and graduated in 1997 ranked first in her class with a Juris Doctor, summa cum laude.[28][29]

Legal career

Clerkships and private practice

Barrett spent two years as a judicial law clerk after law school, first for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 to 1998, and then for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1998 to 1999.[30]

From 1999 to 2002, Barrett practiced law at Miller Cassidy Larroca & Lewin, a boutique law firm for litigation in Washington, D.C., that merged with the Houston, Texas-based law firm Baker Botts in 2001.[29][31] While at Baker Botts, she worked on Bush v. Gore, the lawsuit that grew out of the 2000 United States presidential election, providing research and briefing assistance for the firm's representation of George W. Bush.[32][33]

Teaching and scholarship

In 2001, Barrett was a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at George Washington University Law School. In 2002, she joined the faculty of her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School.[34] At Notre Dame, she taught federal courts, evidence, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. In 2007, she was a visiting professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.[35] Barrett was named a professor of law at Notre Dame in 2010, and from 2014 to 2017 held Notre Dame's Diane and M.O. Miller II Research Chair of Law.[36] Her scholarship focused on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, and stare decisis.[28] Her academic work has been published in the Columbia, Cornell, Virginia, Notre Dame, and Texas law reviews.[34]

At Notre Dame, Barrett received the "Distinguished Professor of the Year" award three times.[34] From 2011 to 2016, she spoke on constitutional law at Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a summer program for law school students that the Alliance Defending Freedom established to inspire a "distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law".[37] While serving on the Seventh Circuit, Barrett commuted between Chicago and South Bend, continuing to teach courses on statutory interpretation and constitutional theory.[38][39]

In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Barrett to serve on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.[34]

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (2017–2020)

Nomination and confirmation

On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit—the federal appellate court covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin—after Judge John Daniel Tinder took senior status.[5][40] A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination was held on September 6, 2017.[41] During the hearing, Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co-wrote in 1998 with Professor John H. Garvey in which they argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty.[42] Asked to "elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today," Barrett said that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia, adding, "My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge"[43][44] and "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."[45] Barrett emphasized that the article was written in her third year in law school and that she was "very much the junior partner in our collaboration."[46] Worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, Feinstein followed Barrett's response by saying, "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern."[47][48][49]

The hearing made Barrett popular with religious conservatives.[29] Feinstein's and other senators' questioning was criticized by some Republicans and other observers, such as university presidents John I. Jenkins of the University of Notre Dame and Christopher Eisgruber of Princeton, as an improper inquiry into a nominee's religious belief that employed an unconstitutional "religious test" for office;[45][50] others, such as Nan Aron, defended Feinstein's line of questioning.[51]

 
Judge Laurence Silberman, for whom Barrett first clerked after law school, swearing her in at her investiture for the Seventh Circuit in 2018

Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights organization, co-signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett's nomination. The letter expressed doubts about her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters.[52][53] During her Senate hearing, Barrett was questioned about landmark LGBTQ legal precedents such as Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Windsor, and Lawrence v. Texas. She said these cases are "binding precedents" that she intended to "faithfully follow if confirmed" to the appeals court, as required by law.[52] The letter Lambda Legal co-signed read, "Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate—indeed, it obfuscates—how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that, in her view, 'put Catholic judges in a bind.'"[52]

Barrett's nomination was supported by every law clerk she had worked with and all of her 49 faculty colleagues at Notre Dame Law school. 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting her nomination.[54][55]

On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11–9 on party lines to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[56][57] On October 30, the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[58] It confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin—voting for her.[27] She received her commission two days later.[2] Barrett is the first and only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit.[59]

Selected cases

Oral arguments from Cook County, Illinois v. Chad F. Wolf, one of the last cases that Barrett took in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020

On the Seventh Circuit, Barrett wrote 79 majority opinions (including two that were amended and one that was withdrawn on rehearing), four concurring opinions (one a per curiam opinion), and six dissenting opinions (six published and one in an unpublished order).[35]

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972

In June 2019, the court, in a unanimous decision written by Barrett, reinstated a suit brought by a male Purdue University student (John Doe) who had been found guilty of sexual assault by Purdue University, which resulted in a one-year suspension, loss of his Navy ROTC scholarship, and expulsion from the ROTC affecting his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy.[60][61] Doe alleged the school's Advisory Committee on Equity discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process by not interviewing the alleged victim, not allowing him to present evidence in his defense, including an erroneous statement that he confessed to some of the alleged assault, and appearing to believe the victim instead of the accused without hearing from either party or having even read the investigation report. The court found that Doe had adequately alleged that the university deprived him of his occupational liberty without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and had violated his Title IX rights "by imposing a punishment infected by sex bias", and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.[62][63]

Employment discrimination

In 2017, the Seventh Circuit rejected the federal government's appeal in a civil lawsuit against AutoZone; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that AutoZone's assignment of employees to different stores based on race (e.g., "sending African American employees to stores in heavily African American neighborhoods") violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Following this, Barrett joined the court as it received a petition for rehearing en banc. Three judges—Chief Judge Diane Wood and judges Ilana Rovner and David Hamilton—voted to grant rehearing, and criticized the three-judge panel's opinion as upholding a "separate-but-equal arrangement". Barrett did not join the panel opinion, but voted with four judges to deny the petition to rehear the case. The petition was unsuccessful by a 5–3 decision.[64][29]

In 2019, Barrett wrote the unanimous three-judge panel opinion affirming summary judgment in the case of Smith v. Illinois Department of Transportation. Smith was a Black employee who claimed racial discrimination upon his dismissal by the department and that he was called a "stupid-ass nigger" by a Black supervisor; the department claimed Smith failed work-level expectations during probationary periods. Barrett wrote that usage of the racial slur was egregious, but Smith's testimony showed no evidence that his subjective experience of the workplace changed because of the slur, nor did it change the department's fact that his discharge was related to "poor performance".[65][66]

Immigration

In June 2020, Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent when the majority upheld a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's controversial "public charge rule", which heightened the standard for obtaining a green card.[67] In her dissent, she argued that any noncitizens who disenrolled from government benefits because of the rule did so due to confusion about the rule itself rather than from its application, writing that the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place. On the merits, Barrett departed from her colleagues Wood and Rovner, who held that DHS's interpretation of that provision was unreasonable under Chevron Step Two. Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted to the Executive by Congress through the Immigration and Nationality Act.[68] The public charge issue is the subject of a circuit split.[68][69]

In May 2019, the court rejected a Yemeni citizen and her U.S. citizen husband's challenge to a consular officer's decision to twice deny her visa application under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The U.S. citizen argued that this had deprived him of a constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse.[70] In a 2–1 majority opinion authored by Barrett, the court held that the plaintiff's claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. Barrett declined to address whether the husband had been denied a constitutional right (or whether the constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse existed at all) because the consular officer's decision to deny the visa application was facially legitimate and bona fide, and under Supreme Court precedent, in such a case courts will not "look behind the exercise of that discretion". The dispute concerned what it takes to satisfy this standard. A petition for rehearing en banc was denied, with Chief Judge Wood, joined by Rovner and Hamilton, dissenting. Barrett wrote a rare opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc (joined by Judge Joel Flaum).[70][71]

Abortion-related cases

Barrett had never ruled directly on abortion before joining the Supreme Court, but she did vote to rehear a successful challenge to Indiana's parental notification law in 2019. In 2018, she voted against striking down another Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains. In both cases, Barrett voted with the minority. The Supreme Court later reinstated the fetal remains law, and in July 2020 it ordered a rehearing in the parental notification case.[72][73]

In February 2019, Barrett joined a unanimous panel decision upholding a Chicago "bubble ordinance" that prohibits approaching within a certain distance of an abortion clinic or its patrons without consent.[74][75] Citing the Supreme Court's buffer zone decision in Hill v. Colorado, the court rejected the plaintiffs' challenge to the ordinance on First Amendment grounds.[76]

Second Amendment

In March 2019, Barrett dissented when the court upheld the federal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms.[77] The majority rejected the as-applied challenge raised by plaintiff Rickey Kanter, who had been convicted of felony mail fraud, and upheld the felony dispossession statute as "substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence." In her dissent, Barrett argued that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest, and that the law violates the Second Amendment.[78] President Trump pardoned Kanter in December 2020.[79]

Criminal procedure

In May 2018, Barrett dissented when the panel majority found that an accused murderer's right to counsel was violated when the state trial judge directly questioned the accused while forbidding his attorney from speaking.[80] Following rehearing en banc, a majority of the circuit's judges agreed with her position.[81]

In August 2018, Barrett wrote for a unanimous panel when it determined that the police had lacked probable cause to search a vehicle based solely upon an anonymous tip that people were "playing with guns", because no crime had been alleged.[82] Barrett distinguished Navarette v. California and wrote, "the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening. But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things, and the latter was premature...Watson's case presents a close call. But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment."[83]

In February 2019, Barrett wrote for a unanimous panel when it found that police officers had been unreasonable to assume "that a woman who answers the door in a bathrobe has authority to consent to a search of a male suspect's residence." Therefore, the district court should have granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in the residence as the fruit of an unconstitutional search.[84][85]

Qualified immunity

In January 2019, Barrett wrote for a unanimous panel when it denied qualified immunity to a civil lawsuit sought by a defendant who as a homicide detective had knowingly provided false and misleading information in the probable cause affidavit that was used to obtain an arrest warrant for the plaintiff.[86] (The charges were later dropped and the plaintiff was released.) The court found the defendant's lies and omissions violated "clearly established law" and the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights and thus the detective was not shielded by qualified immunity.[87]

In Howard v. Koeller (7th Cir. 2018), in an unsigned order by a three-judge panel that included Barrett, the court found that qualified immunity did not protect a prison officer who had labeled a prisoner a "snitch" and thereby exposed him to risk from his fellow inmates.[88][89]

Environment

In Orchard Hill Building Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 893 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir. 2018), Barrett joined a unanimous panel decision, written by Judge Amy J. St. Eve, in a case brought by a property developer challenging the Corps' determination that a wetland 11 mi (18 km) from the nearest navigable river was among the "waters of the United States."[90] The court found that the Corps had not provided substantial evidence of a significant nexus to navigable‐in‐fact waters under Justice Kennedy's concurrence in the Supreme Court's decision in Rapanos v. United States. The case was remanded to the Corps to reconsider whether such a significant nexus exists between the wetlands in question and navigable waters for it to maintain jurisdiction over the land.[91][92]

Consumer protection

In June 2018, Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it found that a plaintiff could not sue Teva Pharmaceuticals for alleged defects in her IUD due to the lack of supportive expert testimony, writing, "the issue of causation in her case is not obvious."[93][94][95]

Coronavirus measures

In early September 2020, Barrett joined Wood's opinion upholding the district court's denial of the Illinois Republican Party's request for a preliminary injunction to block Governor J. B. Pritzker's COVID-19 orders.[30][96] On August 12, 2021, she rejected a challenge to Indiana University's vaccine mandate, marking the first legal test of COVID-19 vaccine mandates before the Supreme Court.[97]

Civil procedure and standing

In June 2019, Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it found that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cannot create a cause of action for a debtor who received collection letters lacking notices required by the statute because she suffered no injury-in-fact to create constitutional standing to sue under Article III.[98] Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The issue created a circuit split.[99][100][101]

In August 2020, Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it held that a Teamsters local did not have standing to appeal an order in the Shakman case because it was not formally a party to the case.[102] The union had not intervened in the action, but rather merely submitted a memorandum in the district court opposing a motion, which the Seventh Circuit determined was insufficient to give the union a right to appeal.[103]

Nomination to the Supreme Court

Main article: Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination
 
President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court on September 26, 2020

Barrett was on Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017, almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation.[104] In July 2018, after Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement announcement, she was reportedly one of three finalists Trump considered, along with Kavanaugh and Judge Raymond Kethledge.[36][105][106]

After Kavanaugh's selection in 2018, Barrett was viewed as a possible nominee for a future U.S. Supreme Court vacancy.[107] After the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020, Barrett was widely mentioned as the front-runner to succeed her.[108] On September 26, 2020, Trump announced his intention to nominate Barrett to fill the vacancy created by Ginsburg's death.[7][109]

Barrett's nomination was generally supported by Republicans, who sought to confirm her before the 2020 United States presidential election.[110] She was a favorite among the Christian right and social conservatives.[72][111][112] Democrats generally opposed the nomination, and were opposed to filling the court vacancy while election voting was already underway in many states.[110] Many observers were angered by the move to fill the vacancy only four months before the end of Trump's term, as the Senate Republican majority had refused to consider President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, more than ten months before the end of his presidency.[110][113][114]

In October, the American Bar Association rated Barrett "well qualified" for the Supreme Court opening, its highest rating.[115] The ABA confines its evaluation to the qualities of "integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament".[116] Barrett's nomination came during a White House COVID-19 outbreak. On October 5, Senator Lindsey Graham formally scheduled the confirmation hearing,[117] which began on October 12 as planned and lasted four days.[118][119] On October 22, the Judiciary Committee reported her confirmation favorably by a 12–0 vote, with all 10 Democrats boycotting the committee meeting.[120][121] On October 25, the Senate voted mostly along party lines to end debate on the confirmation.[122] On October 26, the Senate confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52–48, 30 days after her nomination and 8 days before the 2020 presidential election. Every Republican senator except Susan Collins voted to confirm her, whereas every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus[123] voted in opposition.[124] Barrett is the first justice since 1870 to be confirmed without a single vote from the Senate minority party.[125][126]

The nature of her appointment was criticized by numerous Democratic politicians; Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate."[127] Republicans responded that they were merely exercising their constitutional rights, and that accusations of hypocrisy were nothing more than "an unwarranted tantrum from the left".[127]

U.S. Supreme Court (2020–present)

 
Justice Clarence Thomas administers the oath of office to Barrett on October 26, 2020, at the White House alongside President Donald Trump
 
Chief Justice John Roberts administers the judicial oath to Barrett on October 27, 2020. Justice Barrett's husband, Jesse M. Barrett, holds the Bible.

Barrett became the 103rd associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on October 27, 2020. On the evening of the confirmation vote, Trump hosted a swearing-in ceremony at the White House. As Barrett requested, Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office to her,[126][128][129] the first of two necessary oaths. She took the judicial oath, administered by Chief Justice John Roberts, the next day.[130]

Upon joining the Court, Barrett became the only justice who did not receive their Juris Doctor from Harvard or Yale.[131] She is also the first justice without an Ivy League degree since the 2010 retirement of John Paul Stevens (who graduated from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University School of Law) and the first to be appointed since Sandra Day O'Connor, who graduated from Stanford University and Stanford Law School.[132] She is the first graduate of Notre Dame Law School and the first former member of the Notre Dame faculty to serve on the Supreme Court.[133]

Barrett uses her maiden and married surnames in public. She has chosen to be called "Justice Barrett" in written orders and opinions of the court,[134] as she did as a Seventh Circuit judge.[135]

Circuit assignment

In November 2020, Barrett was assigned to the Seventh Circuit.[136] This assignment's duties include responding to emergency applications to the Court that arise from the circuit's jurisdiction, either by herself or else by referring them to the full Court for review.[136][137]

Early oral argument participation

Having hired her allotted four law clerks, Barrett took part in her first oral argument on November 2, hearing the case U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club.[138][139]

On November 4, the Court heard Fulton v. Philadelphia, in which the plaintiff, Catholic Social Services, sued the city of Philadelphia after being denied a new contract under the city's Fair Practices Ordinance, which bars discrimination in public accommodations. The Archdiocese-affiliated CSS said that for religious reasons it cannot properly vet potential foster parents who are gay couples. CSS argued that under relevant precedent, the Court should find that CSS as a faith-based charity was unfairly singled out, given that the city allows race- and disability-based exceptions within foster-care placements.[140][141] CSS further claimed the law is shown not to be neutral as required by the Court's 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, which allows the government to enforce neutral and generally applicable laws without having to make exceptions for individual religions, because the city labeled CSS's motives "discrimination that occurs under the guise of religious freedom."[141][142] According to the New York Times, Barrett's questions during oral arguments were "evenhanded and did not reveal her position."[143]

First votes as a justice

On November 26, 2020, Barrett joined the Supreme Court's majority in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo,[144] 592 U. S. ____ (2020), in an unsigned[145] 5–4 preliminary injunction in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America, saying that certain COVID-19 restrictions instituted by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had likely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, in that they "single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment."[146][147][148][149] The Court said that the restrictions had likely impinged on the fundamental right of the free exercise of religion without their (in constitutional legal parlance) passing the legal test of "strict scrutiny."[150] Cuomo's order was more restrictive than governmental orders involved in similar cases involving churches in California and Nevada that the Court had allowed to stand by a 5–4 vote.[151][152][153] Ross Guberman, author of Point Taken: How to Write Like the World's Best Judges, told the Times he believed Barrett was the principal author of the Court's decision because of its measured tone and word choices, including its use of the word "show".[154]

Barrett delivered her first concurring opinion on February 5, 2021, in the case South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom.[155][156]

Abortion

In September 2021, Barrett joined the majority, in a 5–4 vote, to reject a petition to temporarily block a Texas law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy; Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined her in the majority.[157] In June 2022, Barrett joined with the same majority in Dobbs v. Jackson, voting to completely overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[158]

Capital punishment

In January 2022, the Supreme Court voted to allow the execution of an inmate to proceed in Alabama; the case was decided by a 5–4 vote, with Barrett joining Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan in dissent.[159]

Environmental policy

Barrett wrote her first majority opinion in United States Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, which was decided on March 4, 2021.[155][160][161] Traditionally the first opinion delivered by a new justice reflects the opinion of a unanimous court, but not always. While Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wrote unanimous first opinions, Barrett, like her predecessor Justice Ginsburg, wrote an opinion for a divided court.[155][162][163]

Although Barrett ruled against environmentalists in March, she voted against oil refineries in her first dissent, Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association.[164]

LGBT rights and issues

In June 2021, Barrett joined a unanimous decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, ruling in favor of a Catholic social service agency that had been denied funding from the City of Philadelphia because it does not adopt to same-sex couples; the ruling also declined to overturn Employment Division v. Smith, "an important precedent limiting First Amendment protections for religious practices."[165] In the same month, Barrett was among the six justices who rejected the appeal of a Washington State florist whom lower courts had ruled violated non-discrimination laws by refusing to sell floral arrangements to a same-sex couple based on her religious beliefs against same-sex marriage, leaving the lower court judgments in place.[166][167][168] In November 2021, Barrett voted with the majority in a 6–3 decision to reject an appeal from Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a hospital affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, which had sought to deny a hysterectomy to a transgender patient on religious grounds.[169] The Court's decision not to hear the case left in place a lower court ruling in favor of the transgender patient; Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.[170][171] In November 2023, Barrett voted with the 6–3 majority to decline to hear an appeal of a decision that upheld Washington's ban on conversion therapy for minors, allowing the law to stand; Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito dissented.[172][173]

Vaccine requirements

Barrett wrote a concurring opinion in Does v. Mills, a case challenging Maine's vaccine requirement for health care workers. She was in the majority in the 6–3 decision to deny a stay of the vaccine requirement, explaining that the case had not been fully briefed or argued.[174]

Judicial philosophy, academic writings, speeches, and political views

Many of Barrett's academic writings are about a professed imperative that jurists limit their work to determining the meanings of constitutional and statutory texts, reconciling these meanings with Supreme Court precedent, and using such precedent to mediate among various jurisprudential philosophies.[175]

According to an analysis by University of Virginia law professors Joshua Fischman and Kevin Cope, Barrett was the rightmost Seventh Circuit judge, though not statistically distinguishable from six other Republican-appointed judges on the court.[176] Compared to the other Seventh Circuit judges, she was more conservative on civil rights issues and less conservative on cases involving employment discrimination, labor and criminal defendants.[176] According to a review by Reuters, Barrett's Seventh Circuit rulings showed that she mostly sided with police and prison guards when they were accused of excessive force.[177] Due to the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity, police-officer defendants in many of these cases were shielded from civil liability because their actions were deemed not in violation of clearly established law. Jay Schweikert, who advocates for the Court's or Congress's elimination of qualified immunity,[178] believes that her "decisions all look like reasonable applications of existing precedent."[177][179] Legal commentator Jacob Sullum argues that while Barrett was on the Seventh Circuit she took "a constrained view of the doctrine's scope."[180]

Textualism and originalism

Barrett is considered a textualist, a proponent of the idea that statutes should be interpreted literally, without considering their legislative history or underlying purpose,[181][182][183][184] and an originalist (of the original-public-meaning, rather than original-intent, variety), a proponent of the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as perceived at the time of enactment.[181][185][186][187] According to her, "Originalism is characterized by a commitment to two core principles. First, the meaning of the constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification. Second, the historical meaning of the text 'has legal significance and is authoritative in most circumstances.'"[185] For the purpose of "describing the disagreement between originalists and nonoriginalists about the authoritativeness of the original public meaning," she refers[185] to a section of a law review article by Keith Whittington, "Originalism: A Critical Introduction",[188] that reads, "Critics of originalism have suggested a range of considerations that might trump original meaning if the two were to come into conflict. From this perspective, fidelity to original meaning is not the chief goal of constitutional theory. ...Confronted with suitably unpleasant results, the nonoriginalist might posit that the original meaning should be sacrificed. Alternatively, we might think that contemporary public opinion should trump original meaning. ...Underlying all these considerations is a view that courts are authorized to impose constitutional rules other than those adopted by the constitutional drafters. ...the originalist must insist that judges not close their eyes to the discoverable meaning of the Constitution and announce some other constitutional rule to supersede it. It is at that point that the originalist and the nonoriginalist must part ways."[188]

Textualism, Barrett says, requires that judges construe statutory language consistent with its "ordinary meaning": "The law is comprised of words—and textualists emphasize that words mean what they say, not what a judge thinks that they ought to say." According to Barrett, "Textualism stands in contrast to purposivism, a method of statutory interpretation that was dominant through much of the 20th century." If a court concludes that statutory language appears to be in tension with a statute's overarching goal, "purposivists argue that a judge should go with the goal rather than the text". For Barrett, textualism is not literalism, nor is it about rigid dictionary definitions. "It is about identifying the plain communicative content of the words".[189]

Barrett clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, and has spoken and written of her admiration of his adherence to the text of statutes and to originalism,[190] writing: "His judicial philosophy is mine, too. A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they may hold."[191] In one article she quoted Scalia on the importance of the original meaning of the Constitution: "The validity of government depends upon the consent of the governed ... [s]o what the people agreed to when they adopted the Constitution ... is what ought to govern us."[185] In a 2017 article in the law review Constitutional Commentary, reviewing a book by Randy E. Barnett, Barrett wrote: "The Constitution's original public meaning is important not because adhering to it limits judicial discretion, but because it is the law. ...The Constitution's meaning is fixed until lawfully changed; thus, the court must stick with the original public meaning of the text even if it rules out the preference of a current majority."[192][193]

According to Barrett, textualists believe that when a court interprets the words of statutes, it should use the most natural meaning of those words to an ordinary skilled user of words at the time, even if the court believes that the legislature intended that the words be understood in a different sense. If the legislature wishes the words of a statute to carry a meaning different from how a non-legislator would understand them, it is free to define the terms in the statute. As Scalia put it, "[A]ll we can know is that [the legislature] voted for a text that they presumably thought would be read the same way any reasonable English speaker would read it." Scalia insisted that "it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than by what the lawmaker promulgated."[194][195]

Barrett has been critical of legal process theory, which gives a more expansive role to theory in shaping the interpretation of law than do textualism and originalism.[194][195] She said that one example of the "process-based" approach can be found in King v. Burwell, in which the Supreme Court, for reasons related to the unorthodox legislative process that produced the Affordable Care Act, interpreted the phrase "Exchange established by the State" to mean "Exchange established by the State or the federal government."[195]

Suspension of habeas corpus

In a journal article, "Suspension and Delegation",[196] Barrett noted that constitutionally only Congress has the authority to decide the terms under which habeas corpus may be legitimately suspended.[197] In all but one of the previous suspensions of habeas corpus, Barrett thought that Congress violated the Constitution "by enacting a suspension statute before an invasion or rebellion occurred—and in some instances, before one was even on the horizon."[81][196] In an educational essay, she sided with the dissenters in Boumediene v. Bush after considering historical factors.[198]

Precedent

At her 2017 Senate confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett said she would follow Supreme Court precedent while on the appellate bench. In 2020, during her nomination acceptance speech at the White House Rose Garden, Barrett said, "Judges are not policymakers, and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold";[199][200] she also said judges "must apply the law as written".[201][202] She explained her view of precedent in response to questions at the hearing.[203]

In a 2013 article in the Texas Law Review on the doctrine of stare decisis, Barrett listed seven cases that she believed should be considered "superprecedents"—cases the Court would never consider overturning. They included Brown v. Board of Education and Mapp v. Ohio (incorporating the Fourth Amendment onto the states),[204] but specifically excluded Roe v. Wade (1973). In explaining why it was excluded, Barrett referenced scholarship agreeing that in order to qualify as "superprecedent", a decision must have widespread support from not only jurists but politicians and the public at large to the extent of becoming immune to reversal or challenge (for example, the constitutionality of paper money). She argued that the people must trust a ruling's validity to such an extent that the matter has been taken "off of the Court's agenda", with lower courts no longer taking challenges to them seriously. Barrett pointed to Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) as evidence that Roe had not attained this status, and quoted Richard H. Fallon Jr.: "[A] decision as fiercely and enduringly contested as Roe v. Wade has acquired no immunity from serious judicial reconsideration, even if arguments for overruling it ought not succeed."[204][205]

Concerning the relationship of textualism to precedent, Barrett said, "It makes sense that one committed to a textualist theory would more often find precedent in conflict with her interpretation of the Constitution than would one who takes a more flexible, all-things-considered approach."[204] She referenced a study by Michael Gerhardt which found that, as of 1994, no two justices in that century had called for overruling more precedents than Justices Scalia and Hugo Black, both of whom were textualists, even though Black was a liberal and Scalia a conservative. Gerhardt also found that during the Rehnquist Court's last 11 years, the average number of times a justice called for the overruling of precedent was higher for textualist justices, with one per year coming from Ginsburg (non-textualist) up to just over two per year from Thomas (textualist). Gerhardt wrote that not all the calls for overruling were related to textualism issues, and that one must be careful in the inferences one draws from the numbers, which "do not indicate either why or on what basis the justices urged overruling."[204]

Affordable Care Act

In 2012, Barrett signed a letter criticizing the Obama administration's approach to providing employees of religious institutions with birth control coverage without having the religious institutions pay for it, calling it an "assault" to religious liberty.[206]

Barrett has been critical of the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (2012), which upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. She wrote in 2017: "Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax, which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power; had he treated the payment as the statute did—as a penalty—he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress's commerce power."[193][207][206][208]

Abortion

Barrett opposes abortion.[209][210] In 2006, she signed an advertisement placed by St. Joseph County Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, in a South Bend, Indiana, newspaper. The ad read: "We, the following citizens of Michiana, oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death. Please continue to pray to end abortion." An unsigned, second page of the advertisement read, "It's time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children."[211][212][213] In 2013, Barrett signed another ad against Roe v. Wade that appeared in Notre Dame's student newspaper and described the decision as having "killed 55 million unborn children". The same year, she spoke at two anti-abortion events at the university.[214]

Personal life

 
Barrett and her family with President Trump on September 26, 2020
 
Then-Judge Barrett with her husband, Jesse, in 2018

In 1999, Barrett married fellow Notre Dame Law School graduate Jesse M. Barrett, a partner at SouthBank Legal – LaDue Curran & Kuehn LLC, in South Bend, Indiana,[215] and a law professor at Notre Dame Law School.[216] Previously, Jesse Barrett had worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana for 13 years.[217] The couple live in South Bend and have seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti, one in 2005 and one after the 2010 Haiti earthquake.[32][218] Their youngest biological child has Down syndrome.[219]

Barrett is a practicing Catholic.[220] Since birth, she has been a member of the Christian parachurch community People of Praise,[221] an ecumenical covenant community founded in South Bend. Associated with the Catholic charismatic renewal movement but not formally affiliated with the Catholic Church,[222][223][224] about 90% of its approximately 1,700 members are Catholic.[222][224] In People of Praise, Barrett has served as a laypastoral women's leader in a position once termed "handmaiden" but now termed "women leader".[225][226]

According to Politico, "a copy of Barrett's ballot history from the Indiana Statewide Voter Registration System obtained by POLITICO [shows] Barrett voted in the 2016 and 2018 general elections, and the 2016 Republican primary, though she pulled a Democratic ballot in the 2011 primary."[38]

Affiliations

Barrett was a member of the Federalist Society from 2005 to 2006 and from 2014 to 2017.[48][27][29] She is a member of the American Law Institute.[227]

Selected publications

A partial list of Barrett's academic publications:[228]

  • Amy Coney Barrett; John H. Garvey (1998). "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases". Marquette Law Review. 81: 303–350.
  • Barrett (2003). "Stare Decisis and Due Process". University of Colorado Law Review. 74: 1011–1074.
  • Barrett (2005). "Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals". The George Washington Law Review. 73: 317–352.
  • Barrett (2006). "The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court". Columbia Law Review. 106 (2): 324–387. JSTOR 4099494.
  • Barrett (2008). "Introduction [Symposium: Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors]". Notre Dame Law Review. 83: 1147–1172.
  • Barrett (2008). (PDF). Virginia Law Review. 94 (4): 813–888. JSTOR 25470574. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 24, 2020. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  • Barrett (2010). "Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency" (PDF). Boston University Law Review. 90: 109–182.
  • Barrett (2010). "The Interpretation/Construction Distinction in Constitutional Law: Annual Meeting of the AALS Section on Constitutional Law: Introduction". Constitutional Commentary. 27: 1–8.
  • Barrett (2013). "Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement" (PDF). Texas Law Review. 91: 1711–1737.
  • Barrett (2014). "Suspension and Delegation". Cornell Law Review. 99: 251–326.
  • Barrett; John Copeland Nagle (2016). "Congressional Originalism". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 19: 1–44.
  • Barrett (2017). "Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty [review]". Constitutional Commentary. 32: 61–84.
  • Barrett (2017). "Originalism and Stare Decisis". Notre Dame Law Review. 92: 1921–1944.
  • Barrett (2017). "Congressional Insiders and Outsiders". University of Chicago Law Review. 84: 2193–2212. JSTOR 45063672.
  • Barrett; David E. Bernstein; Paul D. Clement; Neomi Rao; David R. Stras (2018). (PDF). George Mason Law Review. 26: 19–28. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 22, 2020.
  • Barrett (2020). "Assorted Canards of Contemporary Legal Analysis: Redux". Case Western Reserve Law Review. 70: 855–869.

See also

References

  1. ^ Arberg, Kathleen L. (October 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett Oath Ceremony" (Press release). Supreme Court of the United States. from the original on December 10, 2020. Retrieved December 23, 2020.
  2. ^ a b Amy Coney Barrett July 7, 2018, at the Wayback Machine at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
  3. ^ Wolf, Richard (September 19, 2020). "Notre Dame's Amy Coney Barrett likely a front-runner for Supreme Court vacancy". The Indianapolis Star. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020 – via the South Bend Tribune.
  4. ^ Simon, Abigail (July 3, 2018). "These Are Trump's Candidates for the Supreme Court". Time. from the original on July 6, 2018. Retrieved July 9, 2018. Coney Barrett has written extensively about Constitutional originalism, a legal tradition that advocates for an interpretation of the Constitution based on the meaning it would have had at the time it was written.
  5. ^ a b "Presidential Nomination 369, 115th United States Congress". United States Congress. May 8, 2017. from the original on June 30, 2018. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
  6. ^ "One Nomination Sent to the Senate". whitehouse.gov. September 29, 2020. from the original on January 20, 2021. Retrieved December 10, 2020 – via National Archives.
  7. ^ a b Holland, Steve; Hurley, Lawrence; Chung, Andrew (September 26, 2020). "Trump announces 'brilliant' conservative judge Barrett as Supreme Court pick". Reuters. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 26, 2020.
  8. ^ Miller, Zeke; Mascaro, Lisa; Jalonick, Mary Clare (September 26, 2020). "Trump picks conservative Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court". Associated Press. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 26, 2020.
  9. ^ Fausset, Richard (October 16, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett Sworn In as Supreme Court Justice, Cementing Conservative Majority". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on October 27, 2020. Retrieved January 15, 2021.
  10. ^ Rocha, Veronica (October 26, 2020). "Live updates: Amy Coney Barrett Senate confirmation vote". CNN. from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  11. ^ Newburger, Emma (September 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett pays homage to conservative mentor Antonin Scalia – 'His judicial philosophy is mine too'". CNBC. from the original on November 4, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  12. ^ "Amy Coney Barrett, high court pick, is Antonin Scalia's true heir". The Dallas Morning News. September 26, 2020. from the original on October 20, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  13. ^ Biskupic, Joan (October 12, 2020). "Antonin Scalia's legacy looms over the Amy Coney Barrett hearings". CNN. from the original on December 1, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  14. ^ Naylor, Brian (October 13, 2020). "Barrett, An Originalist, Says Meaning Of Constitution 'Doesn't Change Over Time'". NPR. from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  15. ^ McCarthy, Tom (October 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett is a constitutional 'originalist' – but what does it mean?". The Guardian. from the original on May 31, 2021.
  16. ^ Evans, Zachary (October 26, 2020). "Senator Ed Markey Slams Judicial 'Originalism' as 'Racist,' 'Sexist,' and 'Homophobic'". National Review. from the original on January 2, 2021.
  17. ^ "Who is Amy Coney Barrett? Meet Trump's Supreme Court pick". Chicago Sun-Times. September 25, 2020. from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved October 3, 2020.
  18. ^ Covington, Abigail (September 26, 2020). "Who Is Amy Coney Barrett?". Esquire. from the original on November 29, 2020. Retrieved October 3, 2020.
  19. ^ "Amy Coney Barrett: Views, Opinions and Experience". The Wall Street Journal. September 26, 2020. Archived from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved October 15, 2020.
  20. ^ "Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court". The Irish News. September 28, 2020. from the original on December 3, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  21. ^ "Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing - Day 3, Part 2". C-SPAN.
  22. ^ "Dad, deacon, lawyer: Amy Coney Barrett's father shares his testimony of faith". Catholic Voice. Catholic News Agency. September 29, 2020. from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved September 30, 2020.
  23. ^ "Deacon Mike Coney". St. Catherine of Siena Parish. from the original on September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 30, 2020.
  24. ^ Stole, Bryn (July 6, 2018). "Amy Coney Barrett: Mother of 7, Metairie native, solid conservative ... next Supreme Court justice?". The Times-Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 22, 2020.
  25. ^ "Louisiana reacts to Amy Coney Barrett's Supreme Court nomination". WVLA-TV. September 26, 2020. from the original on September 30, 2020. Retrieved September 30, 2020.
  26. ^ "Judge Amy Coney Barrett '97 J.D. speaks to ND Club of Washington, D.C". Notre Dame Law School. March 1, 2019 – via YouTube.
  27. ^ a b c Howe, Amy (July 4, 2018). "Potential nominee profile: Amy Coney Barrett". SCOTUSblog. from the original on July 6, 2018. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  28. ^ a b c "Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, Professor of Law". Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame School of Law. from the original on April 2, 2019. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  29. ^ a b c d e Howe, Amy (September 21, 2020). . SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on September 23, 2020.
  30. ^ a b Sweet, Lynn; Seidel, Jon (September 24, 2020). "How Amy Coney Barrett went from Notre Dame to Supreme Court frontrunner". Chicago Sun-Times. from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved September 29, 2020.
  31. ^ Carr, Thomas B. (July 26, 2004). . National Law Journal. Archived from the original on September 30, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2017. (subscription required)
  32. ^ a b Tomazin, Farrah (September 27, 2020). "Five things you should know about Trump's Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett". The Sydney Morning Herald. from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
  33. ^ Andrew Kragie. "How Amy Coney Barrett Describes Her Legal Career". law360.com. from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved October 3, 2020.
  34. ^ a b c d "Hon. Amy Coney Barrett". University of Notre Dame. from the original on April 2, 2019. Retrieved August 19, 2020.
  35. ^ a b Taylor, Julia (September 28, 2020). "Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Selected Primary Material". Congressional Research Service. LSB10539. from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved September 30, 2020.
  36. ^ a b Nicholas, Peter; Radnofsky, Louise (July 5, 2018). "Trump Winnows Down Supreme Court Picks, Focusing on Three". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on July 5, 2018. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  37. ^ Brown, Emma; Swaine, Jon (September 27, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Court nominee, spoke at program founded to inspire a 'distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law'". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 29, 2020.
  38. ^ a b Wren, Adam. "How Amy Coney Barrett's Religious Group Helped Shape a City". Politico. from the original on September 28, 2020. Retrieved September 28, 2020.
  39. ^ Sheckler, Christian (September 24, 2020). "What Amy Coney Barrett's former Notre Dame colleagues say about her". The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
  40. ^ "Trump Names 10 Conservatives It Plans to Nominate to Federal Courts". Chicago Tribune. May 8, 2017. from the original on September 30, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2017.
  41. ^ . Senate Judiciary Committee. August 4, 2017. Archived from the original on October 6, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  42. ^ Barrett, Amy; Garvey, John (January 1, 1998). "Catholic Judges in Capital Cases". Marq. L. Rev. 81: 303. from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
  43. ^ Johnson, Eliana. "How Amy Coney Barrett vaulted onto Trump's Supreme Court shortlist". Politico. from the original on September 23, 2020. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
  44. ^ "Judicial and Justice Department Pending Nominations". C-SPAN. from the original on September 22, 2020. Retrieved September 13, 2020.
  45. ^ a b Gerstein, Josh (September 11, 2017). "Senators take fire over questions for Catholic judicial nominee". Politico. from the original on June 29, 2018. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
  46. ^ Freking, Kevin (September 11, 2017). "Catholics decry Dems' questioning of judicial pick". The Detroit News. Associated Press. from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
  47. ^ Green, Emma (September 8, 2017). "Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?". The Atlantic. from the original on June 30, 2018. Retrieved July 1, 2018.
  48. ^ a b Goodstein, Laurie (September 28, 2017). "Some Worry About Judicial Nominee's Ties to a Religious Group". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 28, 2017. Retrieved July 4, 2018.
  49. ^ "Feinstein: 'The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern'". The Washington Post. September 7, 2017. from the original on June 27, 2018. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
  50. ^ Eisgruber, Christopher L. (September 8, 2017). "Letter from President Eisgruber to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Regarding the Use of Religious Tests". Princeton University: Office of the President. Archived from the original on October 7, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  51. ^ Aron, Nan (September 15, 2017). "Forget the critics, Feinstein did the right thing by questioning a judicial nominee on her faith and the law". Los Angeles Times. from the original on July 1, 2018. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
  52. ^ a b c Moreau, Julie (July 8, 2018). "Trump's Supreme Court shortlist alarms LGBTQ advocates". NBC News. from the original on September 22, 2020. Retrieved September 22, 2020.
  53. ^ Wakefield, Lily (September 22, 2020). "The 'frontrunner' to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a staunch Catholic who believes marriage is between a man and a woman". PinkNews. from the original on September 23, 2020. Retrieved September 23, 2020.
  54. ^ Boorstein, Michelle; Zauzmer, Julie (July 7, 2018). "Analysis | The story behind potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's little-known Catholic group, People of Praise". The Washington Post. from the original on June 18, 2020. Retrieved September 23, 2020.
  55. ^ Howe, Amy (September 21, 2020). "Profile of a potential nominee: Amy Coney Barrett". SCOTUSblog. from the original on September 23, 2020. Retrieved September 23, 2020.
  56. ^ Freking, Kevin (October 6, 2017). "Committee Recommends Notre Dame Professor Amy Coney Barrett for U.S. Judicial Bench". South Bend Tribune. Associated Press. from the original on October 6, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  57. ^ "Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings, Committee on the Judiciary". Congressional Record, 115th Congress, 1st Session. 163 (160): D1059–D1060. October 5, 2017. from the original on October 8, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  58. ^ "U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress – 1st Session". senate.gov. from the original on June 13, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2018.
  59. ^ Voruganti, Harsh (June 6, 2017). "Professor Amy Coney Barrett – Nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit". from the original on October 25, 2019. Retrieved September 22, 2020.
  60. ^ Doe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019).
  61. ^ Reinhard, Beth; Brown, Emma (September 20, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett, potential Supreme Court nominee, wrote influential ruling on campus sexual assault". The Washington Post. from the original on September 22, 2020. Retrieved September 23, 2020.
  62. ^ Weliever, Alexander; Le, Jackie (July 2019). "Appeals court reverses dismissal of sex-assault lawsuit". Purdue Exponent. from the original on July 6, 2019. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  63. ^ Odendahl, Marilyn (July 2019). "7th Circuit reinstates student case against Purdue in sexual assault case". The Indiana Lawyer. from the original on July 8, 2019. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  64. ^ EEOC v. AutoZone, 875 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 2017).
  65. ^ "A look at Judge Amy Coney Barrett's notable opinions, votes". Associated Press. October 11, 2020. Retrieved October 13, 2020.
  66. ^ "TERRY L. SMITH v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION". uscourts.gov. from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved October 13, 2020.
  67. ^ Cook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020).
  68. ^ a b Thomsen, Jacqueline (August 5, 2020). "Splitting With Other Circuits, Appeals Court Rules for Trump in 'Public Charge' Case". National Law Journal. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 21, 2020.
  69. ^ Montoya-Galvez, Camilo (August 13, 2020). "Trump administration can enforce green card wealth test in most states, court rules". CBS News. from the original on August 20, 2020. Retrieved September 21, 2020.
  70. ^ a b Yafai v. Pompeo, 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019)., en banc rev. denied September 27, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).
  71. ^ "Dissent Slams 7th Circ.'s Rehearing Denial For Yemeni Couple". Law360. from the original on May 24, 2019. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  72. ^ a b Wolfe, Jan (September 20, 2020). "Notable opinions of U.S. Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett". Reuters. from the original on September 21, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  73. ^ Biskupic, Joan; Cole, Devan (September 26, 2020). "Notable dissents from Judge Amy Coney Barrett". CNN. from the original on October 15, 2020. Retrieved September 30, 2020.
  74. ^ Price v. Chicago, 915 F.3d 1107 (7th Cir. 2019).
  75. ^ Barnes, Robert (July 2, 2020). "Supreme Court leaves in place laws in Chicago, Pennsylvania that restrict antiabortion protesters". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  76. ^ "Price v. City of Chicago, Illinois". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 9, 2020.
  77. ^ Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).
  78. ^ "Justice-in-waiting: If Donald Trump gets another Supreme Court pick...". The Economist. May 16, 2019. ISSN 0013-0613. from the original on June 19, 2019. Retrieved October 21, 2022.
  79. ^ Blackman, Josh (December 23, 2020). "President Trump Pardons, Rickey Kanter. Last Year, Judge Barrett Found That Kanter Did Not Lose His Second Amendment Rights". Reason. Retrieved December 24, 2020.
  80. ^ Schmidt v. Foster, 891 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 2018).
  81. ^ a b "NCLA's Analysis of Hon. Amy Coney Barrett for the U.S. Supreme Court Based on her Administrative State Views" (PDF). nclalegal.org. New Civil Liberties Alliance. September 24, 2020. (PDF) from the original on October 13, 2020. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
  82. ^ United States v. Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018).
  83. ^ "7th Circuit says vacated Fourth Amendment case was 'close call'". The Indiana Lawyer. August 20, 2018. from the original on March 27, 2019. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  84. ^ United States v. Terry, 915 F.3d 1141 (7th Cir. 2019).
  85. ^ Barr, Luke (September 27, 2020). "3 cases that hint at Amy Coney Barrett's views on policing". ABC News. from the original on October 1, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  86. ^ Rainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2019).
  87. ^ "IMPD detective must stand trial on false affidavit in murder". The Indiana Lawyer. January 16, 2019. from the original on March 27, 2019. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  88. ^ "Suit alleging prison officer called man a snitch revived". Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. from the original on November 29, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  89. ^ "Howard v. Koeller & O'Donovan No. 14-CV-667". December 10, 2018. from the original on October 7, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  90. ^ "Orchard Hill Bldg. Co. v. US Army Corps of Engineers, 893 F. 3d 1017 – Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2018". Google Scholar. from the original on October 7, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  91. ^ Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP-Anthony B. (June 29, 2018). "Seventh Circuit Remands "Waters of the United States" Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a "Significant Nexus"". Lexology. from the original on October 16, 2020. Retrieved October 14, 2020.
  92. ^ Grandoni, Dino. "Analysis | The Energy 202: How Amy Coney Barrett may make it harder for environmentalists to win in court". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. from the original on October 13, 2020. Retrieved October 14, 2020.
  93. ^ Dalton v. Teva North America, 891 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2018).
  94. ^ Hogberg, David (September 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett's healthcare record to face heavy scrutiny". Washington Examiner. from the original on October 1, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  95. ^ Katie, Stancombe (June 5, 2018). "7th Circuit Affirms Ruling For Maker In IUD Liability Case". City-County Observer (theindianalawyer.com). from the original on November 5, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  96. ^ Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker January 11, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, No. 20-2175 (7th Cir. September 3, 2020).
  97. ^ Williams, Pete (August 12, 2021). . NBC News. Archived from the original on August 13, 2021. Retrieved August 13, 2021.
  98. ^ Casillas v. Madison Ave. Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019).
  99. ^ Stancombe, Katie (June 5, 2019). "7th Circuit debt collection ruling creates split among circuits". The Indiana Lawyer. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  100. ^ "Seventh Circuit's "No Harm, No Foul" Holding Requires Concrete Harm in Consumer Lending Cases". Consumer Finance Legal Report. July 29, 2019. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  101. ^ "7th Circuit rejects lawsuit over collection letter, says no harm shown". Reuters. June 5, 2019. from the original on June 9, 2019. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  102. ^ Shakman v. Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 969 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 2020).
  103. ^ "Appeals panel ends Teamsters' bid to keep federal hiring monitor out of grievance hearings at Cook court clerk's office". Cook County Record. August 13, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  104. ^ "President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court List". whitehouse.gov. from the original on January 20, 2021. Retrieved August 19, 2020 – via National Archives.
  105. ^ Estepa, Jessica (June 28, 2018). "Indiana's Amy Coney Barrett on list of 25 likely Supreme Court candidates". Indianapolis Star. from the original on September 11, 2019. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
  106. ^ Landler, Mark; Haberman, Maggie (July 9, 2018). "Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 10, 2018.
  107. ^ Seidel, Jon; Sweet, Lynn (July 18, 2018). . Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on July 10, 2018. Retrieved September 25, 2018.
  108. ^ Bennett, Geoff; Pettypiece, Shannon; Alba, Monica. "Amy Coney Barrett emerging as a front-runner to fill Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat". NBC News. from the original on September 19, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
  109. ^ Baker, Peter; Fandos, Nicholas (September 26, 2020). "Trump Announces Barrett as Supreme Court Nominee, Describing Her as Heir to Scalia". The New York Times. from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved September 28, 2020.
  110. ^ a b c Fandos, Nicholas; Cochrane, Emily (September 29, 2020). "With Friendly Visits to Republicans, Barrett Makes Her Capitol Debut". The New York Times. from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  111. ^ Brown, Matthew (September 27, 2020). "Fact check: 'Kingdom of God' comment by SCOTUS contender Amy Coney Barrett lacks context in meme". USA Today. from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020. Barrett is a conservative and a favorite among the religious right
  112. ^ Kirchgaessner, Stephanie (September 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise". The Guardian. from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020. ...the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate, a favorite among Trump's evangelical Christian base...
  113. ^ Liptak, Adam; Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (September 19, 2020). "Shadow of Merrick Garland Hangs Over the Next Supreme Court Fight". The New York Times. from the original on October 3, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  114. ^ Viebeck, Elisa (October 9, 2018). "McConnell signals he would push to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020 despite 2016 example". The Washington Post. from the original on October 12, 2018. Retrieved October 12, 2018.
  115. ^ Wise, Lindsay (October 15, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett's Character, Qualifications Discussed by Witnesses". The Wall Street Journal. from the original on October 18, 2020. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  116. ^ Noel, Randall D. (October 11, 2020). "Re: Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States" (PDF). American Bar Association. (PDF) from the original on October 13, 2020. Retrieved October 15, 2020.
  117. ^ Evans, Zachary (October 5, 2020). "Senator Graham Schedules Judiciary Committee Hearings for Amy Coney Barrett". National Review. from the original on October 16, 2020. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  118. ^ Fandos, Nicholas (October 12, 2020). "'This is probably not about persuading each other.' Senators began four days of contentious hearings". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on October 12, 2020. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
  119. ^ Levine, Marianne; Desiderio, Andrew (October 13, 2020). "Barrett avoids Democrats' questions on Obamacare, abortion". Politico. from the original on October 13, 2020. Retrieved October 13, 2020.
  120. ^ Wise, Lindsay (October 21, 2020). "Democrats to Boycott Committee Vote on Amy Coney Barrett". The Wall Street Journal. from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
  121. ^ Olsen, Tyler (October 22, 2020). "Senate Judiciary Republicans advance Barrett nomination despite Democrats' boycott, committee rules". Fox News. from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved October 22, 2020.
  122. ^ "Senate votes to cut off debate on Barrett confirmation". Roll Call. October 25, 2020. from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved October 25, 2020.
  123. ^ "U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 116th Congress - 2nd Session". www.senate.gov. Retrieved August 15, 2021.
  124. ^ Fandos, Nicholas (October 26, 2020). "Senate Confirms Barrett, Delivering for Trump and Reshaping the Court". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on October 27, 2020. Retrieved October 26, 2020.
  125. ^ "U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: 1789–Present". www.senate.gov. United States Senate. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  126. ^ a b Fausset, Richard (October 27, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett Sworn In as Supreme Court Justice, Cementing Conservative Majority". The New York Times. from the original on October 27, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  127. ^ a b McEvoy, Jemima (October 22, 2020). "After Boycotting Vote, Senate Democrats Continue To Protest 'Illegitimate' Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation". Forbes. from the original on October 30, 2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020.
  128. ^ Dorman, Sam (October 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court Associate Justice at White House ceremony". Fox News. from the original on October 27, 2020. Retrieved October 26, 2020.
  129. ^ Meagan Vazquez (October 26, 2020). "White House holds swearing-in ceremony for Amy Coney Barrett". CNN. from the original on October 27, 2020. Retrieved October 26, 2020.
  130. ^ (Press release). Washington, D.C.: Press Office of the Supreme Court of the United States. October 26, 2020. Archived from the original on December 10, 2020. Retrieved October 22, 2022.
  131. ^ Fink, Jenny (September 22, 2020). "If Chosen for Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa Would be Only Justices Not to Graduate from Harvard or Yale". from the original on April 20, 2021. Retrieved April 20, 2021.
  132. ^ Sheckler, Christian (September 28, 2020). . South Bend Tribune. Archived from the original on October 26, 2020. Retrieved January 10, 2021.
  133. ^ Notre Dame Law School (October 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett, alumna and longtime ND Law faculty member, confirmed as Supreme Court justice". from the original on March 5, 2021. Retrieved April 20, 2021.
  134. ^ (PDF). United States Supreme Court. October 28, 2020. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 4, 2020. Retrieved November 10, 2020.
  135. ^ "United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Case No. 19-2092 United States of America v. Hector Uriarte Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:09-cr-00332-3 — Joan B. Gottschall, Judge. At Page 2". United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. September 15, 2020. from the original on October 8, 2020. Retrieved November 10, 2020.
  136. ^ a b Naham, Matt (November 20, 2020). . awandcrime.com. Law & Crime A Dan Abrams Production. Archived from the original on December 8, 2020. Retrieved December 8, 2020.
  137. ^ Public Information Office Supreme Court of the United States. (PDF). United States Supreme Court. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 23, 2020. Retrieved December 8, 2020.
  138. ^ Liptak, Adam (November 2, 2020). "Justice Amy Coney Barrett Hears Her First Supreme Court Argument". The New York Times. from the original on November 3, 2020. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
  139. ^ Liptak, Adam (November 2, 2020). "Justice Amy Coney Barrett Hears Her First Supreme Court Argument". The New York Times. from the original on November 3, 2020. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
  140. ^ Higgins, Tucker (November 4, 2020). . CNBC. Archived from the original on November 16, 2020.
  141. ^ a b Howe, Amy (October 28, 2020). "Case preview: Court will tackle dispute involving religious foster-care agency, LGBTQ rights". SCOTUSblog. from the original on November 5, 2020. Retrieved November 7, 2020.
  142. ^ "Fulton v. Philadelphia, Reply Brief for Petitioners" (PDF). United States Supreme Court. September 24, 2020. (PDF) from the original on October 31, 2020. Retrieved November 7, 2020.
  143. ^ Liptak, Adam (November 4, 2020). . The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 8, 2020.
  144. ^ Vile, John R. . The First Amendment Encyclopedia presented by the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies. Archived from the original on December 29, 2020. Retrieved December 29, 2020.
  145. ^ Howe, Amy (November 26, 2020). . SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on December 22, 2020. Retrieved December 29, 2020.
  146. ^ "Supreme Court blocks New York coronavirus limits on houses of worship". PBS NewsHour. November 26, 2020. from the original on December 6, 2020. Retrieved December 6, 2020.
  147. ^ Liptak, Adam (November 26, 2020). "Splitting 5 to 4, Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo's Virus Shutdown Order". The New York Times. from the original on November 27, 2020. Retrieved November 27, 2020.
  148. ^ de Vogue, Ariane (November 26, 2020). "In a 5–4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York". CNN. from the original on November 26, 2020. Retrieved November 26, 2020.
  149. ^ Aaro, David (November 26, 2020). "Supreme Court rules against Cuomo's coronavirus limits -- with Barrett playing key role". Fox News. from the original on November 26, 2020. Retrieved November 26, 2020.
  150. ^ Keller, Aaron (November 27, 2020). "Gorsuch Took Aim at Legal Root of Abortion, Birth Control Law While Trashing Chief Justice and Gov. Cuomo". Law & Crime. from the original on November 27, 2020. Retrieved November 29, 2020.
  151. ^ "Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge To New York COVID-19 Restrictions". NPR. November 27, 2020. from the original on November 27, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2020.
  152. ^ de Vogue, Ariane (November 26, 2020). "In a 5–4 ruling, Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid-19 restrictions in New York". CNN. from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved November 27, 2020.
  153. ^ de Vogue, Ariane. "Gov. Andrew Cuomo says SCOTUS ruling on coronavirus restrictions is essentially a statement that "it's a different court."". CNN. from the original on December 5, 2020. Retrieved December 5, 2020.
  154. ^ Liptak, Adam (November 26, 2020). . The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 2, 2020.
  155. ^ a b c Jessica, Gresko (March 5, 2021). . ABC News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on March 10, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2021.
  156. ^ Millhiser, Ian (February 6, 2021). . Vox.com. Vox.com. Archived from the original on February 21, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  157. ^ Liptak, Adam; Goodman, J. David; Tavernise, Sabrina (September 1, 2021). "Supreme Court, Breaking Silence, Won't Block Texas Abortion Law". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on September 1, 2021. Retrieved September 15, 2021.
  158. ^ "Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization et al" (PDF). June 24, 2022.
  159. ^ de Vogue, Ariane (January 28, 2022). "5-4 Supreme Court clears the way for Alabama execution". CNN. Retrieved January 28, 2022.
  160. ^ de Vogue, Ariane (March 5, 2021). . CNN. Archived from the original on March 15, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  161. ^ Liptak, Adam (March 4, 2021). . The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 11, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  162. ^ de Vogue, Ariane (March 8, 2021). . CNN. Archived from the original on March 14, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  163. ^ Barnes, Robert (March 4, 2021). . The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 5, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2021.
  164. ^ "Oil refineries win battle over renewable-fuel exemptions". SCOTUSblog. June 25, 2021. from the original on June 29, 2021. Retrieved June 25, 2021.
  165. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 17, 2021). "Supreme Court Backs Catholic Agency in Case on Gay Rights and Foster Care". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. from the original on July 6, 2021. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
  166. ^ de Vogue, Ariane; Stracqualursi, Veronica (July 2, 2021). "Supreme Court rejects appeal from florist who wouldn't make arrangement for same-sex wedding". CNN. from the original on July 3, 2021. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
  167. ^ Higgins, Tucker (July 2, 2021). "Supreme Court declines to decide whether religious flower shop owner can refuse same-sex weddings". CNBC. from the original on July 2, 2021. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
  168. ^ Dwyer, Devin (July 2, 2021). "Gay couple wins case against florist after Supreme Court rejects appeal". ABC News. from the original on July 3, 2021. Retrieved July 5, 2021.
  169. ^ "Supreme Court won't hear case involving transgender rights". Associated Press. November 1, 2021. from the original on November 3, 2021. Retrieved November 2, 2021.
  170. ^ Chung, Andrew; Hurley, Lawrence (November 2, 2021). "U.S. Supreme Court spurns Catholic hospital appeal over transgender patient". Reuters. from the original on November 2, 2021. Retrieved November 2, 2021.
  171. ^ "Supreme Court turns down Northern California Catholic hospital appeal over transgender patient". The Mercury News. Associated Press. November 2, 2021. from the original on November 2, 2021. Retrieved November 2, 2021.
  172. ^ Cole, Devan (December 11, 2023). "Supreme Court lets stand Washington state law barring conversion therapy for minors | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved December 11, 2023.
  173. ^ Marimow, Ann E. (December 11, 2023). "Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to 'conversion therapy' ban". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved December 11, 2023.
  174. ^ "Court turns away religious challenge to Maine's vaccine mandate for health care workers". SCOTUSblog. October 29, 2021. from the original on November 2, 2021. Retrieved October 30, 2021.
  175. ^ Matthews, Dylan (September 24, 2020). "The legal theories of Amy Coney Barrett, explained". Vox. from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  176. ^ a b Thomson-DeVeaux, Amelia (October 14, 2020). "How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett?". FiveThirtyEight. from the original on December 11, 2020. Retrieved October 14, 2020.
  177. ^ a b Chung, Andrew; Hurley, Lawrence (October 25, 2020). "Analysis: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Barrett often rules for police in excessive force cases". Reuters. from the original on October 25, 2020. Retrieved October 25, 2020.
  178. ^ "End Qualified Immunity". Cato Institute. from the original on November 2, 2020. Retrieved November 3, 2020.
  179. ^ Schweikert, Jay (June 15, 2020). "The Supreme Court's Dereliction of Duty on Qualified Immunity". Cato Institute. from the original on October 24, 2020. Retrieved October 26, 2020.
  180. ^ Sollum, Jacob (October 15, 2020). "These 7th Circuit Decisions Suggest Amy Coney Barrett Takes a Constrained View of Qualified Immunity". Reason.
  181. ^ a b . CNN. October 20, 2020. Archived from the original on October 22, 2020. Retrieved October 23, 2020.
  182. ^ Dias, Elizabeth; Liptak, Adam (September 28, 2020). "To Conservatives, Barrett Has 'Perfect Combination' of Attributes for Supreme Court". The New York Times. from the original on September 24, 2020. Retrieved September 25, 2020.
  183. ^ Bernick, Evan (July 3, 2018). "Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Statutory Interpretation: Textualism, Precedent, Judicial Restraint, and the Future of Chevron". Yale Journal on Regulation. from the original on July 19, 2020. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  184. ^ Nourse, Victoria (October 4, 2020). "Op-Ed: Why Judge Barrett's legal philosophy is deeply antidemocratic". Los Angeles Times. from the original on October 7, 2020. Retrieved October 6, 2020.
  185. ^ a b c d Barrett, Amy Coney; Nagle, John Copeland (October 2016). "Congressional Originalism". Journal of Constitutional Law. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania. 19 (1): 5–42. from the original on October 14, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  186. ^ Kranish, Michael; Barnes, Robert; Boburg, Sahwn; Merimow, Ann E. (September 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett, a disciple of Justice Scalia, is poised to push the Supreme Court further right". The Washington Post. from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
  187. ^ Matthews, Dylan (September 25, 202). "The legal theories of Amy Coney Barrett, explained: An expert explains originalism, the Roberts Court, and what a Justice Barrett might do". Vox. from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  188. ^ a b Whittington, Keith E. (November 2013). "Originalism: A Critical Introduction". Fordham Law Review. New York City: Fordham University. 82 (2). from the original on October 16, 2020. Retrieved October 11, 2020.
  189. ^ Barrett, Amy Coney (September 2020). "2019 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture: Assorted Canards of Contemporary Legal Analysis: Redux". Case Western Reserve Law Review. Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University. from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved October 9, 2020.
  190. ^ Kendall, Brent (September 20, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett Is Again a Top Contender for Supreme Court Nomination". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 13, 2020. Retrieved September 21, 2020.
  191. ^ "Confirmation Battle Looms as Trump Picks Barrett for Supreme Court". The New York Times. September 29, 2020. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 30, 2020.
  192. ^ Joseph, Cameron (September 25, 2020). "Trump Plans to Pick Amy Coney Barrett to Replace RBG on the Supreme Court". Vice News. from the original on October 30, 2020. Retrieved September 30, 2020.
  193. ^ a b Barrett, Amy Coney (January 3, 2017). "Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty". Constitutional Commentary. St. Paul, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Law School. from the original on September 23, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  194. ^ a b Cross, Jesse M. (Winter 2020). "Legislative History in the Modern Congress" (PDF). Harvard Journal on Legislation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. 57 (1): 93–94. (PDF) from the original on September 21, 2020. Retrieved October 5, 2020.
  195. ^ a b c Barrett, Amy Coney (2017). "Congressional Insiders and Outsiders". The University of Chicago Law Review. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. 2017: 2193–2212. from the original on October 3, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  196. ^ a b Barrett, Amy Coney (January 2014). "Suspension and Delegation". Cornell Law Review. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Law School. 99 (2): 251–326. from the original on October 18, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
  197. ^ Huq, Aziz; Ginsburg, Tom (March 23, 2018). "How to Lose Your Constitutional Democracy". UCLA Law Review. Los Angeles, California: UCLA School of Law. 78 (65): 111. from the original on April 5, 2019. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
  198. ^ Barrett, Amy Coney (2020). "The Scope of the Suspension Clause". National Constitution Center. from the original on September 28, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  199. ^ Jasinski, Nicholas. "What to Know About Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's Supreme Court Nominee". barrons.com. from the original on October 8, 2020. Retrieved October 8, 2020.
  200. ^ "Barrett Could Be Most Conservative Justice Since Clarence Thomas". Bloomberg Law. from the original on October 14, 2020. Retrieved October 8, 2020.
  201. ^ "10 things you need to know today: September 27, 2020". The Week. September 27, 2020. from the original on October 8, 2020. Retrieved October 8, 2020.
  202. ^ Greenhouse, Linda (October 8, 2020). "Opinion | Questions for Amy Coney Barrett". The New York Times. from the original on October 8, 2020. Retrieved October 8, 2020.
  203. ^ "Video Clip: Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Precedent and Stare Decisis". C-SPAN. October 13, 2020. from the original on October 24, 2020. Retrieved October 28, 2020.
  204. ^ a b c d Barrett, Amy C. (August 22, 2013). "Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement" (PDF). Texas Law Review. 91 (7): 1711, 1734–35. (PDF) from the original on July 21, 2020. Retrieved September 26, 2020.
  205. ^ Fallon, Richard H. Jr. (June 1, 2008). "Constitutional Precedent Viewed through the Lens of Hartian Positivist Jurisprudence". North Carolina Law Review. 86 (5): 1116. from the original on November 25, 2020. Retrieved October 11, 2020.
  206. ^ a b Wolf, Richard; Groppe, Maureen (September 27, 2020). "On key issues: Statements and rulings by Amy Coney Barrett". South Bend Tribune. from the original on September 25, 2020. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
  207. ^ "Who Is Amy Coney Barrett, Front-Runner For The Supreme Court Nomination?". NPR. from the original on September 25, 2020. Retrieved September 25, 2020.
  208. ^ Keith, Katie (September 20, 2020). "After Justice Ginsburg's Loss, What A New Court Could Mean For The ACA". Health Affairs Forefront. doi:10.1377/forefront.20200920.954961.
  209. ^ Liptak, Adam (October 1, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's Supreme Court Pick, Signed Anti-Abortion Ad". The New York Times. from the original on October 2, 2020. Retrieved October 3, 2020.
  210. ^ Itkowitz, Colby (2020). "Who is Amy Coney Barrett, the judge at the top of Trump's list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg?". The Washington Post. from the original on October 1, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020. is fervently antiabortion
  211. ^ Ramesh Ponnuru, Barrett and That Pro-Life Ad February 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, National Review (October 1, 2020).
  212. ^ Hughes, Siobhan (October 1, 2020). "Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Signed Antiabortion Ad in 2006". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on October 4, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2020.
  213. ^ "Barrett opposed 'abortion on demand,' raising doubts on Roe". Associated Press. October 1, 2020. from the original on October 1, 2020. Retrieved October 2, 2020.
  214. ^ Papenfuss, Mary (October 10, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett Submits Additional Anti-Abortion Docs To Senate After Scrutiny". HuffPost. from the original on October 10, 2020. Retrieved October 10, 2020.
  215. ^ "SouthBank Legal". southbank.legal. from the original on September 21, 2020. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  216. ^ Weiss, Debra Cassens (September 21, 2020). "A top SCOTUS contender, Amy Coney Barrett is likely to draw scrutiny for decisions on abortion, campus sex assault". ABA Journal. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 29, 2020.
  217. ^ "Class Notes: Class of 1996". Notre Dame Magazine. Winter 2012–2013. from the original on March 29, 2013. Retrieved May 8, 2017.
  218. ^ Keeley, Matt (September 20, 2020). "Who is Amy Coney Barrett's family? Potential Supreme Court nominee is a mother of seven and has six siblings". Newsweek. from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 26, 2020.
  219. ^ Dias, Elizabeth; Liptak, Adam (September 21, 2020). "Who is Judge Amy Coney Barrett? What to know about the leading contender to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg". The New York Times. Retrieved October 3, 2020 – via Boston.com.
  220. ^ Escobar, Allyson (September 21, 2020). "Why do Catholics make up a majority of the Supreme Court?". America: The Jesuit Review. from the original on September 22, 2020. Retrieved November 13, 2020.
  221. ^ Boorstein, Michelle (October 16, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett's People of Praise faith group has had a complicated relationship to Catholicism". The Washington Post. from the original on October 18, 2020. Retrieved October 18, 2020.
  222. ^ a b Parrott, Jeff (July 15, 2018). "Supreme Court opening shines spotlight on local religious group People of Praise". South Bend Tribune. from the original on September 25, 2020.
  223. ^ Roberts, Judy (September 25, 2020). "The People of Praise Community: What It Actually Is". National Catholic Register. from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved September 28, 2020.
  224. ^ a b Thorp, Adam (July 5, 2018). "6 things to know about 'People of Praise' and Judge Amy Coney Barrett". Chicago Sun-Times. from the original on September 20, 2020. Retrieved November 13, 2020.
  225. ^ "High court nominee served as 'handmaid' in religious group". Associated Press. October 7, 2020. from the original on October 8, 2020. Retrieved October 8, 2020.
  226. ^ Brown, Emma; Swaine, Jon; Boorstein, Michelle. "Amy Coney Barrett served as a 'handmaid' in Christian group People of Praise". The Washington Post. from the original on October 7, 2020. Retrieved October 7, 2020.
  227. ^ "Members". American Law Institute. from the original on October 16, 2019. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  228. ^ Taylor, Julia (September 28, 2020). "Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Selected Primary Material". Congressional Research Service. from the original on October 12, 2020. Retrieved October 13, 2020.

Further reading

  • United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Questionnaire for the Nominee to the Court of Appeals for Amy Coney Barrett 115th Cong., 1st Sess., September 2017
  • ———, Questionnaire for the Nominee to the Supreme Court for Amy Coney Barrett, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess., September 2020
  • Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar LSB10540, President Trump Nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Initial Observations, by Victoria L. Killion (September 28, 2020)
  • ——— Legal Sidebar LSB10539, Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Selected Primary Material, Coordinated by Julia Taylor (September 28, 2020)
  • ——— Report R46562, Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court, Coordinated by Valerie C. Brannon, Michael John Garcia, and Caitlain Devereaux Lewis (October 6, 2020)

External links

Legal offices
Preceded by Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit
2017–2020 		Succeeded by
Preceded by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States
2020–present 		Incumbent
U.S. order of precedence (ceremonial)
Preceded byas Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Order of precedence of the United States
as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court 		Succeeded byas Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

February 15, 2024
coney, barrett, justice, barrett, redirects, here, other, uses, justice, barrett, disambiguation, vivian, coney, barrett, born, january, 1972, american, lawyer, jurist, serves, associate, justice, supreme, court, united, states, fifth, woman, serve, court, nom. Justice Barrett redirects here For other uses see Justice Barrett disambiguation Amy Vivian Coney Barrett born January 28 1972 is an American lawyer and jurist who serves as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 1 The fifth woman to serve on the court she was nominated by President Donald Trump and has served since October 27 2020 Barrett was a U S circuit judge on the U S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 2017 to 2020 Amy Coney BarrettOfficial portrait 2021Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United StatesIncumbentAssumed office October 27 2020Nominated byDonald TrumpPreceded byRuth Bader GinsburgJudge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh CircuitIn office November 2 2017 October 26 2020Nominated byDonald TrumpPreceded byJohn Daniel TinderSucceeded byThomas KirschPersonal detailsBornAmy Vivian Coney 1972 01 28 January 28 1972 age 52 New Orleans Louisiana U S SpouseJesse Barrett m 1999 wbr Children7EducationRhodes College BA University of Notre Dame JD Amy Coney Barrett s voice source source Amy Coney Barrett s opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on her nomination to the Supreme CourtRecorded October 12 2020Barrett graduated from Rhodes College before attending Notre Dame Law School earning a J D with distinction in 1997 She then clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman and Justice Antonin Scalia In 2002 Barrett joined the faculty at Notre Dame Law School becoming a professor in 2010 While serving on the federal bench she has continued to teach civil procedure constitutional law and statutory interpretation 2 3 4 5 On September 26 2020 Trump nominated Barrett to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court of the United States 6 7 8 Her nomination was controversial because the 2020 presidential election was only 38 days away and Senate Republicans had refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland during an election year in 2016 9 The next month the U S Senate voted 52 48 to confirm her nomination with all Democrats and one Republican in opposition 10 Described as a protegee of Justice Antonin Scalia 11 12 13 Barrett supports textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation 14 15 16 She is generally considered to be among the Court s conservative bloc Contents 1 Early life and education 2 Legal career 2 1 Clerkships and private practice 2 2 Teaching and scholarship 3 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 2017 2020 3 1 Nomination and confirmation 3 2 Selected cases 3 2 1 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 3 2 2 Employment discrimination 3 2 3 Immigration 3 2 4 Abortion related cases 3 2 5 Second Amendment 3 2 6 Criminal procedure 3 2 7 Qualified immunity 3 2 8 Environment 3 2 9 Consumer protection 3 2 10 Coronavirus measures 3 2 11 Civil procedure and standing 4 Nomination to the Supreme Court 5 U S Supreme Court 2020 present 5 1 Circuit assignment 5 2 Early oral argument participation 5 3 First votes as a justice 5 4 Abortion 5 5 Capital punishment 5 6 Environmental policy 5 7 LGBT rights and issues 5 8 Vaccine requirements 6 Judicial philosophy academic writings speeches and political views 6 1 Textualism and originalism 6 1 1 Suspension of habeas corpus 6 2 Precedent 6 3 Affordable Care Act 6 4 Abortion 7 Personal life 8 Affiliations 9 Selected publications 10 See also 11 References 12 Further reading 13 External linksEarly life and educationAmy Vivian Coney was born in 1972 in New Orleans Louisiana to Linda nee Vath and Michael Coney 17 18 The eldest of seven children she has five sisters and a brother Her father worked as an attorney for Shell Oil Company and her mother was a high school French teacher and homemaker Barrett has Irish and French ancestry 19 20 Her maternal ancestors were from Ballyconnell County Cavan Ireland while there is also Irish lineage among her father s ancestors Her great great grandparents emigrated from France to New Orleans 21 Her family is devoutly Catholic and her father is an ordained deacon at St Catherine of Siena Parish in Metairie Louisiana where she grew up 22 23 Barrett attended St Mary s Dominican High School an all girls Roman Catholic high school in New Orleans 24 She was student body vice president of the school and graduated in 1990 25 After high school Barrett attended Rhodes College in Memphis Tennessee where she majored in English literature and minored in French She considers herself somewhat fluent in French but with a Louisiana accent 26 Barrett graduated in 1994 with a Bachelor of Arts magna cum laude and was inducted into Omicron Delta Kappa and Phi Beta Kappa 27 In her graduating class she was named most outstanding English department graduate 28 Barrett then attended Notre Dame Law School on a full tuition scholarship She was an executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review and graduated in 1997 ranked first in her class with a Juris Doctor summa cum laude 28 29 Legal careerClerkships and private practice Barrett spent two years as a judicial law clerk after law school first for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 1997 to 1998 and then for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U S Supreme Court from 1998 to 1999 30 From 1999 to 2002 Barrett practiced law at Miller Cassidy Larroca amp Lewin a boutique law firm for litigation in Washington D C that merged with the Houston Texas based law firm Baker Botts in 2001 29 31 While at Baker Botts she worked on Bush v Gore the lawsuit that grew out of the 2000 United States presidential election providing research and briefing assistance for the firm s representation of George W Bush 32 33 Teaching and scholarship In 2001 Barrett was a visiting associate professor and John M Olin Fellow in Law at George Washington University Law School In 2002 she joined the faculty of her alma mater Notre Dame Law School 34 At Notre Dame she taught federal courts evidence constitutional law and statutory interpretation In 2007 she was a visiting professor at the University of Virginia School of Law 35 Barrett was named a professor of law at Notre Dame in 2010 and from 2014 to 2017 held Notre Dame s Diane and M O Miller II Research Chair of Law 36 Her scholarship focused on constitutional law originalism statutory interpretation and stare decisis 28 Her academic work has been published in the Columbia Cornell Virginia Notre Dame and Texas law reviews 34 At Notre Dame Barrett received the Distinguished Professor of the Year award three times 34 From 2011 to 2016 she spoke on constitutional law at Blackstone Legal Fellowship a summer program for law school students that the Alliance Defending Freedom established to inspire a distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law 37 While serving on the Seventh Circuit Barrett commuted between Chicago and South Bend continuing to teach courses on statutory interpretation and constitutional theory 38 39 In 2010 Chief Justice John Roberts appointed Barrett to serve on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 34 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 2017 2020 Nomination and confirmation On May 8 2017 President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the U S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit the federal appellate court covering Illinois Indiana and Wisconsin after Judge John Daniel Tinder took senior status 5 40 A Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination was held on September 6 2017 41 During the hearing Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about a law review article Barrett co wrote in 1998 with Professor John H Garvey in which they argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty 42 Asked to elaborate on the statements and discuss how you view the issue of faith versus fulfilling the responsibility as a judge today Barrett said that she had participated in many death penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia adding My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge 43 44 and It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge s personal convictions whether they arise from faith or anywhere else on the law 45 Barrett emphasized that the article was written in her third year in law school and that she was very much the junior partner in our collaboration 46 Worried that Barrett would not uphold Roe v Wade given her Catholic beliefs Feinstein followed Barrett s response by saying the dogma lives loudly within you and that is a concern 47 48 49 The hearing made Barrett popular with religious conservatives 29 Feinstein s and other senators questioning was criticized by some Republicans and other observers such as university presidents John I Jenkins of the University of Notre Dame and Christopher Eisgruber of Princeton as an improper inquiry into a nominee s religious belief that employed an unconstitutional religious test for office 45 50 others such as Nan Aron defended Feinstein s line of questioning 51 nbsp Judge Laurence Silberman for whom Barrett first clerked after law school swearing her in at her investiture for the Seventh Circuit in 2018Lambda Legal an LGBT civil rights organization co signed a letter with 26 other gay rights organizations opposing Barrett s nomination The letter expressed doubts about her ability to separate faith from her rulings on LGBT matters 52 53 During her Senate hearing Barrett was questioned about landmark LGBTQ legal precedents such as Obergefell v Hodges United States v Windsor and Lawrence v Texas She said these cases are binding precedents that she intended to faithfully follow if confirmed to the appeals court as required by law 52 The letter Lambda Legal co signed read Simply repeating that she would be bound by Supreme Court precedent does not illuminate indeed it obfuscates how Professor Barrett would interpret and apply precedent when faced with the sorts of dilemmas that in her view put Catholic judges in a bind 52 Barrett s nomination was supported by every law clerk she had worked with and all of her 49 faculty colleagues at Notre Dame Law school 450 former students signed a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting her nomination 54 55 On October 5 2017 the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 11 9 on party lines to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate 56 57 On October 30 the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54 42 58 It confirmed her by a vote of 55 43 on October 31 with three Democrats Joe Donnelly Tim Kaine and Joe Manchin voting for her 27 She received her commission two days later 2 Barrett is the first and only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit 59 Selected cases source source source source source source source track Oral arguments from Cook County Illinois v Chad F Wolf one of the last cases that Barrett took in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2020On the Seventh Circuit Barrett wrote 79 majority opinions including two that were amended and one that was withdrawn on rehearing four concurring opinions one a per curiam opinion and six dissenting opinions six published and one in an unpublished order 35 Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 In June 2019 the court in a unanimous decision written by Barrett reinstated a suit brought by a male Purdue University student John Doe who had been found guilty of sexual assault by Purdue University which resulted in a one year suspension loss of his Navy ROTC scholarship and expulsion from the ROTC affecting his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy 60 61 Doe alleged the school s Advisory Committee on Equity discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process by not interviewing the alleged victim not allowing him to present evidence in his defense including an erroneous statement that he confessed to some of the alleged assault and appearing to believe the victim instead of the accused without hearing from either party or having even read the investigation report The court found that Doe had adequately alleged that the university deprived him of his occupational liberty without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and had violated his Title IX rights by imposing a punishment infected by sex bias and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings 62 63 Employment discrimination In 2017 the Seventh Circuit rejected the federal government s appeal in a civil lawsuit against AutoZone the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that AutoZone s assignment of employees to different stores based on race e g sending African American employees to stores in heavily African American neighborhoods violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Following this Barrett joined the court as it received a petition for rehearing en banc Three judges Chief Judge Diane Wood and judges Ilana Rovner and David Hamilton voted to grant rehearing and criticized the three judge panel s opinion as upholding a separate but equal arrangement Barrett did not join the panel opinion but voted with four judges to deny the petition to rehear the case The petition was unsuccessful by a 5 3 decision 64 29 In 2019 Barrett wrote the unanimous three judge panel opinion affirming summary judgment in the case of Smith v Illinois Department of Transportation Smith was a Black employee who claimed racial discrimination upon his dismissal by the department and that he was called a stupid ass nigger by a Black supervisor the department claimed Smith failed work level expectations during probationary periods Barrett wrote that usage of the racial slur was egregious but Smith s testimony showed no evidence that his subjective experience of the workplace changed because of the slur nor did it change the department s fact that his discharge was related to poor performance 65 66 Immigration In June 2020 Barrett wrote a 40 page dissent when the majority upheld a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration s controversial public charge rule which heightened the standard for obtaining a green card 67 In her dissent she argued that any noncitizens who disenrolled from government benefits because of the rule did so due to confusion about the rule itself rather than from its application writing that the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place On the merits Barrett departed from her colleagues Wood and Rovner who held that DHS s interpretation of that provision was unreasonable under Chevron Step Two Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted to the Executive by Congress through the Immigration and Nationality Act 68 The public charge issue is the subject of a circuit split 68 69 In May 2019 the court rejected a Yemeni citizen and her U S citizen husband s challenge to a consular officer s decision to twice deny her visa application under the Immigration and Nationality Act The U S citizen argued that this had deprived him of a constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse 70 In a 2 1 majority opinion authored by Barrett the court held that the plaintiff s claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability Barrett declined to address whether the husband had been denied a constitutional right or whether the constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse existed at all because the consular officer s decision to deny the visa application was facially legitimate and bona fide and under Supreme Court precedent in such a case courts will not look behind the exercise of that discretion The dispute concerned what it takes to satisfy this standard A petition for rehearing en banc was denied with Chief Judge Wood joined by Rovner and Hamilton dissenting Barrett wrote a rare opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc joined by Judge Joel Flaum 70 71 Abortion related cases Barrett had never ruled directly on abortion before joining the Supreme Court but she did vote to rehear a successful challenge to Indiana s parental notification law in 2019 In 2018 she voted against striking down another Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains In both cases Barrett voted with the minority The Supreme Court later reinstated the fetal remains law and in July 2020 it ordered a rehearing in the parental notification case 72 73 In February 2019 Barrett joined a unanimous panel decision upholding a Chicago bubble ordinance that prohibits approaching within a certain distance of an abortion clinic or its patrons without consent 74 75 Citing the Supreme Court s buffer zone decision in Hill v Colorado the court rejected the plaintiffs challenge to the ordinance on First Amendment grounds 76 Second Amendment In March 2019 Barrett dissented when the court upheld the federal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms 77 The majority rejected the as applied challenge raised by plaintiff Rickey Kanter who had been convicted of felony mail fraud and upheld the felony dispossession statute as substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence In her dissent Barrett argued that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes there is no evidence that denying guns to nonviolent felons promotes this interest and that the law violates the Second Amendment 78 President Trump pardoned Kanter in December 2020 79 Criminal procedure In May 2018 Barrett dissented when the panel majority found that an accused murderer s right to counsel was violated when the state trial judge directly questioned the accused while forbidding his attorney from speaking 80 Following rehearing en banc a majority of the circuit s judges agreed with her position 81 In August 2018 Barrett wrote for a unanimous panel when it determined that the police had lacked probable cause to search a vehicle based solely upon an anonymous tip that people were playing with guns because no crime had been alleged 82 Barrett distinguished Navarette v California and wrote the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things and the latter was premature Watson s case presents a close call But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment 83 In February 2019 Barrett wrote for a unanimous panel when it found that police officers had been unreasonable to assume that a woman who answers the door in a bathrobe has authority to consent to a search of a male suspect s residence Therefore the district court should have granted the defendant s motion to suppress evidence found in the residence as the fruit of an unconstitutional search 84 85 Qualified immunity In January 2019 Barrett wrote for a unanimous panel when it denied qualified immunity to a civil lawsuit sought by a defendant who as a homicide detective had knowingly provided false and misleading information in the probable cause affidavit that was used to obtain an arrest warrant for the plaintiff 86 The charges were later dropped and the plaintiff was released The court found the defendant s lies and omissions violated clearly established law and the plaintiff s Fourth Amendment rights and thus the detective was not shielded by qualified immunity 87 In Howard v Koeller 7th Cir 2018 in an unsigned order by a three judge panel that included Barrett the court found that qualified immunity did not protect a prison officer who had labeled a prisoner a snitch and thereby exposed him to risk from his fellow inmates 88 89 Environment In Orchard Hill Building Co v U S Army Corps of Engineers 893 F 3d 1017 7th Cir 2018 Barrett joined a unanimous panel decision written by Judge Amy J St Eve in a case brought by a property developer challenging the Corps determination that a wetland 11 mi 18 km from the nearest navigable river was among the waters of the United States 90 The court found that the Corps had not provided substantial evidence of a significant nexus to navigable in fact waters under Justice Kennedy s concurrence in the Supreme Court s decision in Rapanos v United States The case was remanded to the Corps to reconsider whether such a significant nexus exists between the wetlands in question and navigable waters for it to maintain jurisdiction over the land 91 92 Consumer protection In June 2018 Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it found that a plaintiff could not sue Teva Pharmaceuticals for alleged defects in her IUD due to the lack of supportive expert testimony writing the issue of causation in her case is not obvious 93 94 95 Coronavirus measures In early September 2020 Barrett joined Wood s opinion upholding the district court s denial of the Illinois Republican Party s request for a preliminary injunction to block Governor J B Pritzker s COVID 19 orders 30 96 On August 12 2021 she rejected a challenge to Indiana University s vaccine mandate marking the first legal test of COVID 19 vaccine mandates before the Supreme Court 97 Civil procedure and standing In June 2019 Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it found that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cannot create a cause of action for a debtor who received collection letters lacking notices required by the statute because she suffered no injury in fact to create constitutional standing to sue under Article III 98 Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc The issue created a circuit split 99 100 101 In August 2020 Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it held that a Teamsters local did not have standing to appeal an order in the Shakman case because it was not formally a party to the case 102 The union had not intervened in the action but rather merely submitted a memorandum in the district court opposing a motion which the Seventh Circuit determined was insufficient to give the union a right to appeal 103 Nomination to the Supreme CourtMain article Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination nbsp President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court on September 26 2020Barrett was on Trump s list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017 almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation 104 In July 2018 after Justice Anthony Kennedy s retirement announcement she was reportedly one of three finalists Trump considered along with Kavanaugh and Judge Raymond Kethledge 36 105 106 After Kavanaugh s selection in 2018 Barrett was viewed as a possible nominee for a future U S Supreme Court vacancy 107 After the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18 2020 Barrett was widely mentioned as the front runner to succeed her 108 On September 26 2020 Trump announced his intention to nominate Barrett to fill the vacancy created by Ginsburg s death 7 109 Barrett s nomination was generally supported by Republicans who sought to confirm her before the 2020 United States presidential election 110 She was a favorite among the Christian right and social conservatives 72 111 112 Democrats generally opposed the nomination and were opposed to filling the court vacancy while election voting was already underway in many states 110 Many observers were angered by the move to fill the vacancy only four months before the end of Trump s term as the Senate Republican majority had refused to consider President Barack Obama s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 more than ten months before the end of his presidency 110 113 114 In October the American Bar Association rated Barrett well qualified for the Supreme Court opening its highest rating 115 The ABA confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity professional competence and judicial temperament 116 Barrett s nomination came during a White House COVID 19 outbreak On October 5 Senator Lindsey Graham formally scheduled the confirmation hearing 117 which began on October 12 as planned and lasted four days 118 119 On October 22 the Judiciary Committee reported her confirmation favorably by a 12 0 vote with all 10 Democrats boycotting the committee meeting 120 121 On October 25 the Senate voted mostly along party lines to end debate on the confirmation 122 On October 26 the Senate confirmed Barrett to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52 48 30 days after her nomination and 8 days before the 2020 presidential election Every Republican senator except Susan Collins voted to confirm her whereas every member of the Senate Democratic Caucus 123 voted in opposition 124 Barrett is the first justice since 1870 to be confirmed without a single vote from the Senate minority party 125 126 The nature of her appointment was criticized by numerous Democratic politicians Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it the most illegitimate process I have ever witnessed in the Senate 127 Republicans responded that they were merely exercising their constitutional rights and that accusations of hypocrisy were nothing more than an unwarranted tantrum from the left 127 U S Supreme Court 2020 present nbsp Justice Clarence Thomas administers the oath of office to Barrett on October 26 2020 at the White House alongside President Donald Trump nbsp Chief Justice John Roberts administers the judicial oath to Barrett on October 27 2020 Justice Barrett s husband Jesse M Barrett holds the Bible Barrett became the 103rd associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on October 27 2020 On the evening of the confirmation vote Trump hosted a swearing in ceremony at the White House As Barrett requested Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office to her 126 128 129 the first of two necessary oaths She took the judicial oath administered by Chief Justice John Roberts the next day 130 Upon joining the Court Barrett became the only justice who did not receive their Juris Doctor from Harvard or Yale 131 She is also the first justice without an Ivy League degree since the 2010 retirement of John Paul Stevens who graduated from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University School of Law and the first to be appointed since Sandra Day O Connor who graduated from Stanford University and Stanford Law School 132 She is the first graduate of Notre Dame Law School and the first former member of the Notre Dame faculty to serve on the Supreme Court 133 Barrett uses her maiden and married surnames in public She has chosen to be called Justice Barrett in written orders and opinions of the court 134 as she did as a Seventh Circuit judge 135 Circuit assignment In November 2020 Barrett was assigned to the Seventh Circuit 136 This assignment s duties include responding to emergency applications to the Court that arise from the circuit s jurisdiction either by herself or else by referring them to the full Court for review 136 137 Early oral argument participation Having hired her allotted four law clerks Barrett took part in her first oral argument on November 2 hearing the case U S Fish and Wildlife Service v Sierra Club 138 139 On November 4 the Court heard Fulton v Philadelphia in which the plaintiff Catholic Social Services sued the city of Philadelphia after being denied a new contract under the city s Fair Practices Ordinance which bars discrimination in public accommodations The Archdiocese affiliated CSS said that for religious reasons it cannot properly vet potential foster parents who are gay couples CSS argued that under relevant precedent the Court should find that CSS as a faith based charity was unfairly singled out given that the city allows race and disability based exceptions within foster care placements 140 141 CSS further claimed the law is shown not to be neutral as required by the Court s 1990 decision Employment Division v Smith which allows the government to enforce neutral and generally applicable laws without having to make exceptions for individual religions because the city labeled CSS s motives discrimination that occurs under the guise of religious freedom 141 142 According to the New York Times Barrett s questions during oral arguments were evenhanded and did not reveal her position 143 First votes as a justice On November 26 2020 Barrett joined the Supreme Court s majority in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo 144 592 U S 2020 in an unsigned 145 5 4 preliminary injunction in favor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America saying that certain COVID 19 restrictions instituted by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had likely violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment in that they single out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment 146 147 148 149 The Court said that the restrictions had likely impinged on the fundamental right of the free exercise of religion without their in constitutional legal parlance passing the legal test of strict scrutiny 150 Cuomo s order was more restrictive than governmental orders involved in similar cases involving churches in California and Nevada that the Court had allowed to stand by a 5 4 vote 151 152 153 Ross Guberman author of Point Taken How to Write Like the World s Best Judges told the Times he believed Barrett was the principal author of the Court s decision because of its measured tone and word choices including its use of the word show 154 Barrett delivered her first concurring opinion on February 5 2021 in the case South Bay United Pentecostal Church v Newsom 155 156 Abortion In September 2021 Barrett joined the majority in a 5 4 vote to reject a petition to temporarily block a Texas law banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy Thomas Alito Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined her in the majority 157 In June 2022 Barrett joined with the same majority in Dobbs v Jackson voting to completely overturn Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey 158 Capital punishment In January 2022 the Supreme Court voted to allow the execution of an inmate to proceed in Alabama the case was decided by a 5 4 vote with Barrett joining Breyer Sotomayor and Kagan in dissent 159 Environmental policy Barrett wrote her first majority opinion in United States Fish and Wildlife Service v Sierra Club which was decided on March 4 2021 155 160 161 Traditionally the first opinion delivered by a new justice reflects the opinion of a unanimous court but not always While Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wrote unanimous first opinions Barrett like her predecessor Justice Ginsburg wrote an opinion for a divided court 155 162 163 Although Barrett ruled against environmentalists in March she voted against oil refineries in her first dissent Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining v Renewable Fuels Association 164 LGBT rights and issues In June 2021 Barrett joined a unanimous decision in Fulton v City of Philadelphia ruling in favor of a Catholic social service agency that had been denied funding from the City of Philadelphia because it does not adopt to same sex couples the ruling also declined to overturn Employment Division v Smith an important precedent limiting First Amendment protections for religious practices 165 In the same month Barrett was among the six justices who rejected the appeal of a Washington State florist whom lower courts had ruled violated non discrimination laws by refusing to sell floral arrangements to a same sex couple based on her religious beliefs against same sex marriage leaving the lower court judgments in place 166 167 168 In November 2021 Barrett voted with the majority in a 6 3 decision to reject an appeal from Mercy San Juan Medical Center a hospital affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church which had sought to deny a hysterectomy to a transgender patient on religious grounds 169 The Court s decision not to hear the case left in place a lower court ruling in favor of the transgender patient Justices Thomas Alito and Gorsuch dissented 170 171 In November 2023 Barrett voted with the 6 3 majority to decline to hear an appeal of a decision that upheld Washington s ban on conversion therapy for minors allowing the law to stand Kavanaugh Thomas and Alito dissented 172 173 Vaccine requirements Barrett wrote a concurring opinion in Does v Mills a case challenging Maine s vaccine requirement for health care workers She was in the majority in the 6 3 decision to deny a stay of the vaccine requirement explaining that the case had not been fully briefed or argued 174 Judicial philosophy academic writings speeches and political viewsMany of Barrett s academic writings are about a professed imperative that jurists limit their work to determining the meanings of constitutional and statutory texts reconciling these meanings with Supreme Court precedent and using such precedent to mediate among various jurisprudential philosophies 175 According to an analysis by University of Virginia law professors Joshua Fischman and Kevin Cope Barrett was the rightmost Seventh Circuit judge though not statistically distinguishable from six other Republican appointed judges on the court 176 Compared to the other Seventh Circuit judges she was more conservative on civil rights issues and less conservative on cases involving employment discrimination labor and criminal defendants 176 According to a review by Reuters Barrett s Seventh Circuit rulings showed that she mostly sided with police and prison guards when they were accused of excessive force 177 Due to the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity police officer defendants in many of these cases were shielded from civil liability because their actions were deemed not in violation of clearly established law Jay Schweikert who advocates for the Court s or Congress s elimination of qualified immunity 178 believes that her decisions all look like reasonable applications of existing precedent 177 179 Legal commentator Jacob Sullum argues that while Barrett was on the Seventh Circuit she took a constrained view of the doctrine s scope 180 Textualism and originalism Barrett is considered a textualist a proponent of the idea that statutes should be interpreted literally without considering their legislative history or underlying purpose 181 182 183 184 and an originalist of the original public meaning rather than original intent variety a proponent of the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as perceived at the time of enactment 181 185 186 187 According to her Originalism is characterized by a commitment to two core principles First the meaning of the constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification Second the historical meaning of the text has legal significance and is authoritative in most circumstances 185 For the purpose of describing the disagreement between originalists and nonoriginalists about the authoritativeness of the original public meaning she refers 185 to a section of a law review article by Keith Whittington Originalism A Critical Introduction 188 that reads Critics of originalism have suggested a range of considerations that might trump original meaning if the two were to come into conflict From this perspective fidelity to original meaning is not the chief goal of constitutional theory Confronted with suitably unpleasant results the nonoriginalist might posit that the original meaning should be sacrificed Alternatively we might think that contemporary public opinion should trump original meaning Underlying all these considerations is a view that courts are authorized to impose constitutional rules other than those adopted by the constitutional drafters the originalist must insist that judges not close their eyes to the discoverable meaning of the Constitution and announce some other constitutional rule to supersede it It is at that point that the originalist and the nonoriginalist must part ways 188 Textualism Barrett says requires that judges construe statutory language consistent with its ordinary meaning The law is comprised of words and textualists emphasize that words mean what they say not what a judge thinks that they ought to say According to Barrett Textualism stands in contrast to purposivism a method of statutory interpretation that was dominant through much of the 20th century If a court concludes that statutory language appears to be in tension with a statute s overarching goal purposivists argue that a judge should go with the goal rather than the text For Barrett textualism is not literalism nor is it about rigid dictionary definitions It is about identifying the plain communicative content of the words 189 Barrett clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia and has spoken and written of her admiration of his adherence to the text of statutes and to originalism 190 writing His judicial philosophy is mine too A judge must apply the law as written Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they may hold 191 In one article she quoted Scalia on the importance of the original meaning of the Constitution The validity of government depends upon the consent of the governed s o what the people agreed to when they adopted the Constitution is what ought to govern us 185 In a 2017 article in the law review Constitutional Commentary reviewing a book by Randy E Barnett Barrett wrote The Constitution s original public meaning is important not because adhering to it limits judicial discretion but because it is the law The Constitution s meaning is fixed until lawfully changed thus the court must stick with the original public meaning of the text even if it rules out the preference of a current majority 192 193 According to Barrett textualists believe that when a court interprets the words of statutes it should use the most natural meaning of those words to an ordinary skilled user of words at the time even if the court believes that the legislature intended that the words be understood in a different sense If the legislature wishes the words of a statute to carry a meaning different from how a non legislator would understand them it is free to define the terms in the statute As Scalia put it A ll we can know is that the legislature voted for a text that they presumably thought would be read the same way any reasonable English speaker would read it Scalia insisted that it is simply incompatible with democratic government or indeed even with fair government to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant rather than by what the lawmaker promulgated 194 195 Barrett has been critical of legal process theory which gives a more expansive role to theory in shaping the interpretation of law than do textualism and originalism 194 195 She said that one example of the process based approach can be found in King v Burwell in which the Supreme Court for reasons related to the unorthodox legislative process that produced the Affordable Care Act interpreted the phrase Exchange established by the State to mean Exchange established by the State or the federal government 195 Suspension of habeas corpus In a journal article Suspension and Delegation 196 Barrett noted that constitutionally only Congress has the authority to decide the terms under which habeas corpus may be legitimately suspended 197 In all but one of the previous suspensions of habeas corpus Barrett thought that Congress violated the Constitution by enacting a suspension statute before an invasion or rebellion occurred and in some instances before one was even on the horizon 81 196 In an educational essay she sided with the dissenters in Boumediene v Bush after considering historical factors 198 Precedent At her 2017 Senate confirmation hearing for the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Barrett said she would follow Supreme Court precedent while on the appellate bench In 2020 during her nomination acceptance speech at the White House Rose Garden Barrett said Judges are not policymakers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold 199 200 she also said judges must apply the law as written 201 202 She explained her view of precedent in response to questions at the hearing 203 In a 2013 article in the Texas Law Review on the doctrine of stare decisis Barrett listed seven cases that she believed should be considered superprecedents cases the Court would never consider overturning They included Brown v Board of Education and Mapp v Ohio incorporating the Fourth Amendment onto the states 204 but specifically excluded Roe v Wade 1973 In explaining why it was excluded Barrett referenced scholarship agreeing that in order to qualify as superprecedent a decision must have widespread support from not only jurists but politicians and the public at large to the extent of becoming immune to reversal or challenge for example the constitutionality of paper money She argued that the people must trust a ruling s validity to such an extent that the matter has been taken off of the Court s agenda with lower courts no longer taking challenges to them seriously Barrett pointed to Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992 as evidence that Roe had not attained this status and quoted Richard H Fallon Jr A decision as fiercely and enduringly contested as Roe v Wade has acquired no immunity from serious judicial reconsideration even if arguments for overruling it ought not succeed 204 205 Concerning the relationship of textualism to precedent Barrett said It makes sense that one committed to a textualist theory would more often find precedent in conflict with her interpretation of the Constitution than would one who takes a more flexible all things considered approach 204 She referenced a study by Michael Gerhardt which found that as of 1994 no two justices in that century had called for overruling more precedents than Justices Scalia and Hugo Black both of whom were textualists even though Black was a liberal and Scalia a conservative Gerhardt also found that during the Rehnquist Court s last 11 years the average number of times a justice called for the overruling of precedent was higher for textualist justices with one per year coming from Ginsburg non textualist up to just over two per year from Thomas textualist Gerhardt wrote that not all the calls for overruling were related to textualism issues and that one must be careful in the inferences one draws from the numbers which do not indicate either why or on what basis the justices urged overruling 204 Affordable Care Act In 2012 Barrett signed a letter criticizing the Obama administration s approach to providing employees of religious institutions with birth control coverage without having the religious institutions pay for it calling it an assault to religious liberty 206 Barrett has been critical of the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts in National Federation of Independent Businesses v Sebelius 2012 which upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act s individual mandate She wrote in 2017 Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute He construed the penalty imposed on those without health insurance as a tax which permitted him to sustain the statute as a valid exercise of the taxing power had he treated the payment as the statute did as a penalty he would have had to invalidate the statute as lying beyond Congress s commerce power 193 207 206 208 Abortion Barrett opposes abortion 209 210 In 2006 she signed an advertisement placed by St Joseph County Right to Life an anti abortion group in a South Bend Indiana newspaper The ad read We the following citizens of Michiana oppose abortion on demand and defend the right to life from fertilization to natural death Please continue to pray to end abortion An unsigned second page of the advertisement read It s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children 211 212 213 In 2013 Barrett signed another ad against Roe v Wade that appeared in Notre Dame s student newspaper and described the decision as having killed 55 million unborn children The same year she spoke at two anti abortion events at the university 214 Personal life nbsp Barrett and her family with President Trump on September 26 2020 nbsp Then Judge Barrett with her husband Jesse in 2018In 1999 Barrett married fellow Notre Dame Law School graduate Jesse M Barrett a partner at SouthBank Legal LaDue Curran amp Kuehn LLC in South Bend Indiana 215 and a law professor at Notre Dame Law School 216 Previously Jesse Barrett had worked as an Assistant U S Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana for 13 years 217 The couple live in South Bend and have seven children two of whom were adopted from Haiti one in 2005 and one after the 2010 Haiti earthquake 32 218 Their youngest biological child has Down syndrome 219 Barrett is a practicing Catholic 220 Since birth she has been a member of the Christian parachurch community People of Praise 221 an ecumenical covenant community founded in South Bend Associated with the Catholic charismatic renewal movement but not formally affiliated with the Catholic Church 222 223 224 about 90 of its approximately 1 700 members are Catholic 222 224 In People of Praise Barrett has served as a laypastoral women s leader in a position once termed handmaiden but now termed women leader 225 226 According to Politico a copy of Barrett s ballot history from the Indiana Statewide Voter Registration System obtained by POLITICO shows Barrett voted in the 2016 and 2018 general elections and the 2016 Republican primary though she pulled a Democratic ballot in the 2011 primary 38 AffiliationsBarrett was a member of the Federalist Society from 2005 to 2006 and from 2014 to 2017 48 27 29 She is a member of the American Law Institute 227 Selected publicationsA partial list of Barrett s academic publications 228 Amy Coney Barrett John H Garvey 1998 Catholic Judges in Capital Cases Marquette Law Review 81 303 350 Barrett 2003 Stare Decisis and Due Process University of Colorado Law Review 74 1011 1074 Barrett 2005 Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals The George Washington Law Review 73 317 352 Barrett 2006 The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court Columbia Law Review 106 2 324 387 JSTOR 4099494 Barrett 2008 Introduction Symposium Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors Notre Dame Law Review 83 1147 1172 Barrett 2008 Procedural Common Law PDF Virginia Law Review 94 4 813 888 JSTOR 25470574 Archived from the original PDF on September 24 2020 Retrieved August 8 2020 Barrett 2010 Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency PDF Boston University Law Review 90 109 182 Barrett 2010 The Interpretation Construction Distinction in Constitutional Law Annual Meeting of the AALS Section on Constitutional Law Introduction Constitutional Commentary 27 1 8 Barrett 2013 Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement PDF Texas Law Review 91 1711 1737 Barrett 2014 Suspension and Delegation Cornell Law Review 99 251 326 Barrett John Copeland Nagle 2016 Congressional Originalism University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 19 1 44 Barrett 2017 Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty review Constitutional Commentary 32 61 84 Barrett 2017 Originalism and Stare Decisis Notre Dame Law Review 92 1921 1944 Barrett 2017 Congressional Insiders and Outsiders University of Chicago Law Review 84 2193 2212 JSTOR 45063672 Barrett David E Bernstein Paul D Clement Neomi Rao David R Stras 2018 Scalia Forum 2019 Panel Discussion PDF George Mason Law Review 26 19 28 Archived from the original PDF on July 22 2020 Barrett 2020 Assorted Canards of Contemporary Legal Analysis Redux Case Western Reserve Law Review 70 855 869 See alsoDonald Trump Supreme Court candidates List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States Seat 9 White House COVID 19 outbreak at a ceremony for Barrett s nominationReferences Arberg Kathleen L October 26 2020 Amy Coney Barrett Oath Ceremony Press release Supreme Court of the United States Archived from the original on December 10 2020 Retrieved December 23 2020 a b Amy Coney Barrett Archived July 7 2018 at the Wayback Machine at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center Wolf Richard September 19 2020 Notre Dame s Amy Coney Barrett likely a front runner for Supreme Court vacancy The Indianapolis Star Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved September 19 2020 via the South Bend Tribune Simon Abigail July 3 2018 These Are Trump s Candidates for the Supreme Court Time Archived from the original on July 6 2018 Retrieved July 9 2018 Coney Barrett has written extensively about Constitutional originalism a legal tradition that advocates for an interpretation of the Constitution based on the meaning it would have had at the time it was written a b Presidential Nomination 369 115th United States Congress United States Congress May 8 2017 Archived from the original on June 30 2018 Retrieved June 30 2018 One Nomination Sent to the Senate whitehouse gov September 29 2020 Archived from the original on January 20 2021 Retrieved December 10 2020 via National Archives a b Holland Steve Hurley Lawrence Chung Andrew September 26 2020 Trump announces brilliant conservative judge Barrett as Supreme Court pick Reuters Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved September 26 2020 Miller Zeke Mascaro Lisa Jalonick Mary Clare September 26 2020 Trump picks conservative Amy Coney Barrett for Supreme Court Associated Press Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved September 26 2020 Fausset Richard October 16 2020 Amy Coney Barrett Sworn In as Supreme Court Justice Cementing Conservative Majority The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Archived from the original on October 27 2020 Retrieved January 15 2021 Rocha Veronica October 26 2020 Live updates Amy Coney Barrett Senate confirmation vote CNN Archived from the original on December 12 2020 Retrieved October 27 2020 Newburger Emma September 26 2020 Amy Coney Barrett pays homage to conservative mentor Antonin Scalia His judicial philosophy is mine too CNBC Archived from the original on November 4 2020 Retrieved October 27 2020 Amy Coney Barrett high court pick is Antonin Scalia s true heir The Dallas Morning News September 26 2020 Archived from the original on October 20 2020 Retrieved October 27 2020 Biskupic Joan October 12 2020 Antonin Scalia s legacy looms over the Amy Coney Barrett hearings CNN Archived from the original on December 1 2020 Retrieved October 27 2020 Naylor Brian October 13 2020 Barrett An Originalist Says Meaning Of Constitution Doesn t Change Over Time NPR Archived from the original on December 11 2020 Retrieved October 27 2020 McCarthy Tom October 26 2020 Amy Coney Barrett is a constitutional originalist but what does it mean The Guardian Archived from the original on May 31 2021 Evans Zachary October 26 2020 Senator Ed Markey Slams Judicial Originalism as Racist Sexist and Homophobic National Review Archived from the original on January 2 2021 Who is Amy Coney Barrett Meet Trump s Supreme Court pick Chicago Sun Times September 25 2020 Archived from the original on September 27 2020 Retrieved October 3 2020 Covington Abigail September 26 2020 Who Is Amy Coney Barrett Esquire Archived from the original on November 29 2020 Retrieved October 3 2020 Amy Coney Barrett Views Opinions and Experience The Wall Street Journal September 26 2020 Archived from the original on September 27 2020 Retrieved October 15 2020 Donald Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court The Irish News September 28 2020 Archived from the original on December 3 2020 Retrieved October 27 2020 Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Hearing Day 3 Part 2 C SPAN Dad deacon lawyer Amy Coney Barrett s father shares his testimony of faith Catholic Voice Catholic News Agency September 29 2020 Archived from the original on October 2 2020 Retrieved September 30 2020 Deacon Mike Coney St Catherine of Siena Parish Archived from the original on September 20 2020 Retrieved September 30 2020 Stole Bryn July 6 2018 Amy Coney Barrett Mother of 7 Metairie native solid conservative next Supreme Court justice The Times Picayune The New Orleans Advocate Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved September 22 2020 Louisiana reacts to Amy Coney Barrett s Supreme Court nomination WVLA TV September 26 2020 Archived from the original on September 30 2020 Retrieved September 30 2020 Judge Amy Coney Barrett 97 J D speaks to ND Club of Washington D C Notre Dame Law School March 1 2019 via YouTube a b c Howe Amy July 4 2018 Potential nominee profile Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUSblog Archived from the original on July 6 2018 Retrieved July 7 2018 a b c Hon Amy Coney Barrett Professor of Law Notre Dame Indiana University of Notre Dame School of Law Archived from the original on April 2 2019 Retrieved March 14 2019 a b c d e Howe Amy September 21 2020 Profile of a potential nominee Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUSblog Archived from the original on September 23 2020 a b Sweet Lynn Seidel Jon September 24 2020 How Amy Coney Barrett went from Notre Dame to Supreme Court frontrunner Chicago Sun Times Archived from the original on February 14 2021 Retrieved September 29 2020 Carr Thomas B July 26 2004 Letters to the Editor Now Defunct Miller Cassidy National Law Journal Archived from the original on September 30 2017 Retrieved September 29 2017 subscription required a b Tomazin Farrah September 27 2020 Five things you should know about Trump s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett The Sydney Morning Herald Archived from the original on February 14 2021 Retrieved September 27 2020 Andrew Kragie How Amy Coney Barrett Describes Her Legal Career law360 com Archived from the original on February 14 2021 Retrieved October 3 2020 a b c d Hon Amy Coney Barrett University of Notre Dame Archived from the original on April 2 2019 Retrieved August 19 2020 a b Taylor Julia September 28 2020 Judge Amy Coney Barrett Selected Primary Material Congressional Research Service LSB10539 Archived from the original on February 14 2021 Retrieved September 30 2020 a b Nicholas Peter Radnofsky Louise July 5 2018 Trump Winnows Down Supreme Court Picks Focusing on Three The Wall Street Journal Archived from the original on July 5 2018 Retrieved July 5 2018 Brown Emma Swaine Jon September 27 2020 Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nominee spoke at program founded to inspire a distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law The Washington Post Retrieved September 29 2020 a b Wren Adam How Amy Coney Barrett s Religious Group Helped Shape a City Politico Archived from the original on September 28 2020 Retrieved September 28 2020 Sheckler Christian September 24 2020 What Amy Coney Barrett s former Notre Dame colleagues say about her The Indianapolis Star Retrieved September 27 2020 Trump Names 10 Conservatives It Plans to Nominate to Federal Courts Chicago Tribune May 8 2017 Archived from the original on September 30 2017 Retrieved September 29 2017 Rescheduled Notice of Committee Hearing Senate Judiciary Committee August 4 2017 Archived from the original on October 6 2017 Retrieved October 7 2017 Barrett Amy Garvey John January 1 1998 Catholic Judges in Capital Cases Marq L Rev 81 303 Archived from the original on February 14 2021 Retrieved September 19 2020 Johnson Eliana How Amy Coney Barrett vaulted onto Trump s Supreme Court shortlist Politico Archived from the original on September 23 2020 Retrieved July 3 2018 Judicial and Justice Department Pending Nominations C SPAN Archived from the original on September 22 2020 Retrieved September 13 2020 a b Gerstein Josh September 11 2017 Senators take fire over questions for Catholic judicial nominee Politico Archived from the original on June 29 2018 Retrieved June 30 2018 Freking Kevin September 11 2017 Catholics decry Dems questioning of judicial pick The Detroit News Associated Press Archived from the original on February 14 2021 Retrieved September 27 2020 Green Emma September 8 2017 Should a Judge s Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith The Atlantic Archived from the original on June 30 2018 Retrieved July 1 2018 a b Goodstein Laurie September 28 2017 Some Worry About Judicial Nominee s Ties to a Religious Group The New York Times Archived from the original on September 28 2017 Retrieved July 4 2018 Feinstein The dogma lives loudly within you and that is a concern The Washington Post September 7 2017 Archived from the original on June 27 2018 Retrieved June 30 2018 Eisgruber Christopher L September 8 2017 Letter from President Eisgruber to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Regarding the Use of Religious Tests Princeton University Office of the President Archived from the original on October 7 2017 Retrieved October 7 2017 Aron Nan September 15 2017 Forget the critics Feinstein did the right thing by questioning a judicial nominee on her faith and the law Los Angeles Times Archived from the original on July 1 2018 Retrieved June 30 2018 a b c Moreau Julie July 8 2018 Trump s Supreme Court shortlist alarms LGBTQ advocates NBC News Archived from the original on September 22 2020 Retrieved September 22 2020 Wakefield Lily September 22 2020 The frontrunner to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a staunch Catholic who believes marriage is between a man and a woman PinkNews Archived from the original on September 23 2020 Retrieved September 23 2020 Boorstein Michelle Zauzmer Julie July 7 2018 Analysis The story behind potential Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett s little known Catholic group People of Praise The Washington Post Archived from the original on June 18 2020 Retrieved September 23 2020 Howe Amy September 21 2020 Profile of a potential nominee Amy Coney Barrett SCOTUSblog Archived from the original on September 23 2020 Retrieved September 23 2020 Freking Kevin October 6 2017 Committee Recommends Notre Dame Professor Amy Coney Barrett for U S Judicial Bench South Bend Tribune Associated Press Archived from the original on October 6 2017 Retrieved October 7 2017 Daily Digest Senate Committee Meetings Committee on the Judiciary Congressional Record 115th Congress 1st Session 163 160 D1059 D1060 October 5 2017 Archived from the original on October 8 2017 Retrieved October 7 2017 U S Senate U S Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress 1st Session senate gov Archived from the original on June 13 2018 Retrieved May 8 2018 Voruganti Harsh June 6 2017 Professor Amy Coney Barrett Nominee to the U S Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Archived from the original on October 25 2019 Retrieved September 22 2020 Doe v Purdue University 928 F 3d 652 7th Cir 2019 Reinhard Beth Brown Emma September 20 2020 Amy Coney Barrett potential Supreme Court nominee wrote influential ruling on campus sexual assault The Washington Post Archived from the original on September 22 2020 Retrieved September 23 2020 Weliever Alexander Le Jackie July 2019 Appeals court reverses dismissal of sex assault lawsuit Purdue Exponent Archived from the original on July 6 2019 Retrieved July 8 2019 Odendahl Marilyn July 2019 7th Circuit reinstates student case against Purdue in sexual assault case The Indiana Lawyer Archived from the original on July 8 2019 Retrieved July 8 2019 EEOC v AutoZone 875 F 3d 860 7th Cir 2017 A look at Judge Amy Coney Barrett s notable opinions votes Associated Press October 11 2020 Retrieved October 13 2020 TERRY L SMITH v ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION uscourts gov Archived from the original on February 14 2021 Retrieved October 13 2020 Cook County v Wolf 962 F 3d 208 7th Cir 2020 a b Thomsen Jacqueline August 5 2020 Splitting With Other Circuits Appeals Court Rules for Trump in Public Charge Case National Law Journal Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved September 21 2020 Montoya Galvez Camilo August 13 2020 Trump administration can enforce green card wealth test in most states court rules CBS News Archived from the original on August 20 2020 Retrieved September 21 2020 a b Yafai v Pompeo 924 F 3d 969 7th Cir 2019 en banc rev denied Archived September 27 2020 at the Wayback Machine 924 F 3d 969 7th Cir 2019 per curiam Dissent Slams 7th Circ s Rehearing Denial For Yemeni Couple Law360 Archived from the original on May 24 2019 Retrieved August 4 2020 a b Wolfe Jan September 20 2020 Notable opinions of U S Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett Reuters Archived from the original on September 21 2020 Retrieved September 20 2020 Biskupic Joan Cole Devan September 26 2020 Notable dissents from Judge Amy Coney Barrett CNN Archived from the original on October 15 2020 Retrieved September 30 2020 Price v Chicago 915 F 3d 1107 7th Cir 2019 Barnes Robert July 2 2020 Supreme Court leaves in place laws in Chicago Pennsylvania that restrict antiabortion protesters The Washington Post Retrieved July 9 2020 Price v City of Chicago Illinois SCOTUSblog Retrieved July 9 2020 Kanter v Barr 919 F 3d 437 7th Cir 2019 Justice in waiting If Donald Trump gets another Supreme Court pick The Economist May 16 2019 ISSN 0013 0613 Archived from the original on June 19 2019 Retrieved October 21 2022 Blackman Josh December 23 2020 President Trump Pardons Rickey Kanter Last Year Judge Barrett Found That Kanter Did Not Lose His Second Amendment Rights Reason Retrieved December 24 2020 Schmidt v Foster 891 F 3d 302 7th Cir 2018 a b NCLA s Analysis of Hon Amy Coney Barrett for the U S Supreme Court Based on her Administrative State Views PDF nclalegal org New Civil Liberties Alliance September 24 2020 Archived PDF from the original on October 13 2020 Retrieved October 7 2020 United States v Watson 900 F 3d 892 7th Cir 2018 7th Circuit says vacated Fourth Amendment case was close call The Indiana Lawyer August 20 2018 Archived from the original on March 27 2019 Retrieved March 14 2019 United States v Terry 915 F 3d 1141 7th Cir 2019 Barr Luke September 27 2020 3 cases that hint at Amy Coney Barrett s views on policing ABC News Archived from the original on October 1 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 Rainsberger v Benner 913 F 3d 640 7th Cir 2019 IMPD detective must stand trial on false affidavit in murder The Indiana Lawyer January 16 2019 Archived from the original on March 27 2019 Retrieved March 14 2019 Suit alleging prison officer called man a snitch revived Chicago Daily Law Bulletin Archived from the original on November 29 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 Howard v Koeller amp O Donovan No 14 CV 667 December 10 2018 Archived from the original on October 7 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 Orchard Hill Bldg Co v US Army Corps of Engineers 893 F 3d 1017 Court of Appeals 7th Circuit 2018 Google Scholar Archived from the original on October 7 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 Cavender Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP Anthony B June 29 2018 Seventh Circuit Remands Waters of the United States Case to Corps of Engineers to Determine Whether there is a Significant Nexus Lexology Archived from the original on October 16 2020 Retrieved October 14 2020 Grandoni Dino Analysis The Energy 202 How Amy Coney Barrett may make it harder for environmentalists to win in court The Washington Post ISSN 0190 8286 Archived from the original on October 13 2020 Retrieved October 14 2020 Dalton v Teva North America 891 F 3d 687 7th Cir 2018 Hogberg David September 26 2020 Amy Coney Barrett s healthcare record to face heavy scrutiny Washington Examiner Archived from the original on October 1 2020 Retrieved October 2 2020 Katie Stancombe June 5 2018 7th Circuit Affirms Ruling For Maker In IUD Liability Case City County Observer theindianalawyer com Archived from the original on November 5 2020 Retrieved October 2 2020 Illinois Republican Party v Pritzker Archived January 11 2021 at the Wayback Machine No 20 2175 7th Cir September 3 2020 Williams Pete August 12 2021 Supreme Court rejects challenge to Indiana University s vaccination requirement NBC News Archived from the original on August 13 2021 Retrieved August 13 2021 Casillas v Madison Ave Associates Inc 926 F 3d 329 7th Cir 2019 Stancombe Katie June 5 2019 7th Circuit debt collection ruling creates split among circuits The Indiana Lawyer Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved August 4 2020 Seventh Circuit s No Harm No Foul Holding Requires Concrete Harm in Consumer Lending Cases Consumer Finance Legal Report July 29 2019 Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved August 4 2020 7th Circuit rejects lawsuit over collection letter says no harm shown Reuters June 5 2019 Archived from the original on June 9 2019 Retrieved August 4 2020 Shakman v Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County 969 F 3d 810 7th Cir 2020 Appeals panel ends Teamsters bid to keep federal hiring monitor out of grievance hearings at Cook court clerk s office Cook County Record August 13 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 President Donald J Trump s Supreme Court List whitehouse gov Archived from the original on January 20 2021 Retrieved August 19 2020 via National Archives Estepa Jessica June 28 2018 Indiana s Amy Coney Barrett on list of 25 likely Supreme Court candidates Indianapolis Star Archived from the original on September 11 2019 Retrieved June 29 2018 Landler Mark Haberman Maggie July 9 2018 Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court The New York Times Archived from the original on July 10 2018 Seidel Jon Sweet Lynn July 18 2018 Judge Amy Coney Barrett passed over for Supreme Court will stay in spotlight Chicago Sun Times Archived from the original on July 10 2018 Retrieved September 25 2018 Bennett Geoff Pettypiece Shannon Alba Monica Amy Coney Barrett emerging as a front runner to fill Ginsburg s Supreme Court seat NBC News Archived from the original on September 19 2020 Retrieved September 19 2020 Baker Peter Fandos Nicholas September 26 2020 Trump Announces Barrett as Supreme Court Nominee Describing Her as Heir to Scalia The New York Times Archived from the original on September 27 2020 Retrieved September 28 2020 a b c Fandos Nicholas Cochrane Emily September 29 2020 With Friendly Visits to Republicans Barrett Makes Her Capitol Debut The New York Times Archived from the original on October 2 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 Brown Matthew September 27 2020 Fact check Kingdom of God comment by SCOTUS contender Amy Coney Barrett lacks context in meme USA Today Archived from the original on September 27 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 Barrett is a conservative and a favorite among the religious right Kirchgaessner Stephanie September 26 2020 Amy Coney Barrett spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise The Guardian Archived from the original on October 2 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 the Louisiana native and Notre Dame Law graduate a favorite among Trump s evangelical Christian base Liptak Adam Stolberg Sheryl Gay September 19 2020 Shadow of Merrick Garland Hangs Over the Next Supreme Court Fight The New York Times Archived from the original on October 3 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 Viebeck Elisa October 9 2018 McConnell signals he would push to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in 2020 despite 2016 example The Washington Post Archived from the original on October 12 2018 Retrieved October 12 2018 Wise Lindsay October 15 2020 Amy Coney Barrett s Character Qualifications Discussed by Witnesses The Wall Street Journal Archived from the original on October 18 2020 Retrieved October 18 2020 Noel Randall D October 11 2020 Re Nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States PDF American Bar Association Archived PDF from the original on October 13 2020 Retrieved October 15 2020 Evans Zachary October 5 2020 Senator Graham Schedules Judiciary Committee Hearings for Amy Coney Barrett National Review Archived from the original on October 16 2020 Retrieved October 18 2020 Fandos Nicholas October 12 2020 This is probably not about persuading each other Senators began four days of contentious hearings The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Archived from the original on October 12 2020 Retrieved October 12 2020 Levine Marianne Desiderio Andrew October 13 2020 Barrett avoids Democrats questions on Obamacare abortion Politico Archived from the original on October 13 2020 Retrieved October 13 2020 Wise Lindsay October 21 2020 Democrats to Boycott Committee Vote on Amy Coney Barrett The Wall Street Journal Archived from the original on October 22 2020 Retrieved October 22 2020 Olsen Tyler October 22 2020 Senate Judiciary Republicans advance Barrett nomination despite Democrats boycott committee rules Fox News Archived from the original on October 22 2020 Retrieved October 22 2020 Senate votes to cut off debate on Barrett confirmation Roll Call October 25 2020 Archived from the original on October 25 2020 Retrieved October 25 2020 U S Senate U S Senate Roll Call Votes 116th Congress 2nd Session www senate gov Retrieved August 15 2021 Fandos Nicholas October 26 2020 Senate Confirms Barrett Delivering for Trump and Reshaping the Court The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Archived from the original on October 27 2020 Retrieved October 26 2020 U S Senate Supreme Court Nominations 1789 Present www senate gov United States Senate Retrieved October 27 2020 a b Fausset Richard October 27 2020 Amy Coney Barrett Sworn In as Supreme Court Justice Cementing Conservative Majority The New York Times Archived from the original on October 27 2020 Retrieved October 27 2020 a b McEvoy Jemima October 22 2020 After Boycotting Vote Senate Democrats Continue To Protest Illegitimate Amy Coney Barrett Confirmation Forbes Archived from the original on October 30 2020 Retrieved October 27 2020 Dorman Sam October 26 2020 Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court Associate Justice at White House ceremony Fox News Archived from the original on October 27 2020 Retrieved October 26 2020 Meagan Vazquez October 26 2020 White House holds swearing in ceremony for Amy Coney Barrett CNN Archived from the original on October 27 2020 Retrieved October 26 2020 Press Release Regarding The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett Oath Ceremony Press release Washington D C Press Office of the Supreme Court of the United States October 26 2020 Archived from the original on December 10 2020 Retrieved October 22 2022 Fink Jenny September 22 2020 If Chosen for Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa Would be Only Justices Not to Graduate from Harvard or Yale Archived from the original on April 20 2021 Retrieved April 20 2021 Sheckler Christian September 28 2020 Supreme Court nomination puts Notre Dame Law School front and center nationally South Bend Tribune Archived from the original on October 26 2020 Retrieved January 10 2021 Notre Dame Law School October 26 2020 Amy Coney Barrett alumna and longtime ND Law faculty member confirmed as Supreme Court justice Archived from the original on March 5 2021 Retrieved April 20 2021 Supreme Court of the United States case No 20 542 Republican Party of Pennsylvania v Kathy Boockvar Secretary of Pennsylvaania et al On Motion to eppedite considaration of the petition for writ of certiorari At page 1 PDF United States Supreme Court October 28 2020 Archived from the original PDF on November 4 2020 Retrieved November 10 2020 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Case No 19 2092 United States of America v Hector Uriarte Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division No 1 09 cr 00332 3 Joan B Gottschall Judge At Page 2 United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit September 15 2020 Archived from the original on October 8 2020 Retrieved November 10 2020 a b Naham Matt November 20 2020 Supreme Court Reveals New Circuit Assignments for Justices What You Need to Know awandcrime com Law amp Crime A Dan Abrams Production Archived from the original on December 8 2020 Retrieved December 8 2020 Public Information Office Supreme Court of the United States A Reporter s Guide to Applications Pending Before The Supreme Court of the United States at page 3 PDF United States Supreme Court Archived from the original PDF on November 23 2020 Retrieved December 8 2020 Liptak Adam November 2 2020 Justice Amy Coney Barrett Hears Her First Supreme Court Argument The New York Times Archived from the original on November 3 2020 Retrieved November 3 2020 Liptak Adam November 2 2020 Justice Amy Coney Barrett Hears Her First Supreme Court Argument The New York Times Archived from the original on November 3 2020 Retrieved November 3 2020 Higgins Tucker November 4 2020 Supreme Court leans in favor of Catholic adoption agency that won t work with LGBT couples CNBC Archived from the original on November 16 2020 a b Howe Amy October 28 2020 Case preview Court will tackle dispute involving religious foster care agency LGBTQ rights SCOTUSblog Archived from the original on November 5 2020 Retrieved November 7 2020 Fulton v Philadelphia Reply Brief for Petitioners PDF United States Supreme Court September 24 2020 Archived PDF from the original on October 31 2020 Retrieved November 7 2020 Liptak Adam November 4 2020 Supreme Court Weighs Legacy of Same Sex Marriage Case The New York Times Archived from the original on November 8 2020 Vile John R Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v Cuomo 2020 The First Amendment Encyclopedia presented by the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies Archived from the original on December 29 2020 Retrieved December 29 2020 Howe Amy November 26 2020 Justices lift New York s COVID related attendance limits on worship services SCOTUSblog Archived from the original on December 22 2020 Retrieved December 29 2020 Supreme Court blocks New York coronavirus limits on houses of worship PBS NewsHour November 26 2020 Archived from the original on December 6 2020 Retrieved December 6 2020 Liptak Adam November 26 2020 Splitting 5 to 4 Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge to Cuomo s Virus Shutdown Order The New York Times Archived from the original on November 27 2020 Retrieved November 27 2020 de Vogue Ariane November 26 2020 In a 5 4 ruling Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid 19 restrictions in New York CNN Archived from the original on November 26 2020 Retrieved November 26 2020 Aaro David November 26 2020 Supreme Court rules against Cuomo s coronavirus limits with Barrett playing key role Fox News Archived from the original on November 26 2020 Retrieved November 26 2020 Keller Aaron November 27 2020 Gorsuch Took Aim at Legal Root of Abortion Birth Control Law While Trashing Chief Justice and Gov Cuomo Law amp Crime Archived from the original on November 27 2020 Retrieved November 29 2020 Supreme Court Backs Religious Challenge To New York COVID 19 Restrictions NPR November 27 2020 Archived from the original on November 27 2020 Retrieved November 28 2020 de Vogue Ariane November 26 2020 In a 5 4 ruling Supreme Court sides with religious groups in a dispute over Covid 19 restrictions in New York CNN Archived from the original on February 1 2021 Retrieved November 27 2020 de Vogue Ariane Gov Andrew Cuomo says SCOTUS ruling on coronavirus restrictions is essentially a statement that it s a different court CNN Archived from the original on December 5 2020 Retrieved December 5 2020 Liptak Adam November 26 2020 Midnight Ruling Exposes Rifts at a Supreme Court Transformed by Trump The New York Times Archived from the original on December 2 2020 a b c Jessica Gresko March 5 2021 Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivers 1st opinion ABC News Associated Press Archived from the original on March 10 2021 Retrieved March 5 2021 Millhiser Ian February 6 2021 The Supreme Court s new deeply fractured decision on churches and the pandemic explained Vox com Vox com Archived from the original on February 21 2021 Retrieved March 16 2021 Liptak Adam Goodman J David Tavernise Sabrina September 1 2021 Supreme Court Breaking Silence Won t Block Texas Abortion Law The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Archived from the original on September 1 2021 Retrieved September 15 2021 Dobbs State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health et al v Jackson Women s Health Organization et al PDF June 24 2022 de Vogue Ariane January 28 2022 5 4 Supreme Court clears the way for Alabama execution CNN Retrieved January 28 2022 de Vogue Ariane March 5 2021 Justice Amy Coney Barrett s first majority written opinion limits reach of FOIA CNN Archived from the original on March 15 2021 Retrieved March 16 2021 Liptak Adam March 4 2021 Justice Amy Coney Barrett Issues Her First Majority Opinion The New York Times Archived from the original on March 11 2021 Retrieved March 16 2021 de Vogue Ariane March 8 2021 Stephen Breyer adds respect to his dissent of Amy Coney Barrett s first opinion CNN Archived from the original on March 14 2021 Retrieved March 16 2021 Barnes Robert March 4 2021 Courts amp Laws In Amy Coney Barrett s first signed majority opinion Supreme Court sides with government over environmentalists The Washington Post Archived from the original on March 5 2021 Retrieved March 16 2021 Oil refineries win battle over renewable fuel exemptions SCOTUSblog June 25 2021 Archived from the original on June 29 2021 Retrieved June 25 2021 Liptak Adam June 17 2021 Supreme Court Backs Catholic Agency in Case on Gay Rights and Foster Care The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Archived from the original on July 6 2021 Retrieved July 5 2021 de Vogue Ariane Stracqualursi Veronica July 2 2021 Supreme Court rejects appeal from florist who wouldn t make arrangement for same sex wedding CNN Archived from the original on July 3 2021 Retrieved July 5 2021 Higgins Tucker July 2 2021 Supreme Court declines to decide whether religious flower shop owner can refuse same sex weddings CNBC Archived from the original on July 2 2021 Retrieved July 5 2021 Dwyer Devin July 2 2021 Gay couple wins case against florist after Supreme Court rejects appeal ABC News Archived from the original on July 3 2021 Retrieved July 5 2021 Supreme Court won t hear case involving transgender rights Associated Press November 1 2021 Archived from the original on November 3 2021 Retrieved November 2 2021 Chung Andrew Hurley Lawrence November 2 2021 U S Supreme Court spurns Catholic hospital appeal over transgender patient Reuters Archived from the original on November 2 2021 Retrieved November 2 2021 Supreme Court turns down Northern California Catholic hospital appeal over transgender patient The Mercury News Associated Press November 2 2021 Archived from the original on November 2 2021 Retrieved November 2 2021 Cole Devan December 11 2023 Supreme Court lets stand Washington state law barring conversion therapy for minors CNN Politics CNN Retrieved December 11 2023 Marimow Ann E December 11 2023 Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to conversion therapy ban Washington Post ISSN 0190 8286 Retrieved December 11 2023 Court turns away religious challenge to Maine s vaccine mandate for health care workers SCOTUSblog October 29 2021 Archived from the original on November 2 2021 Retrieved October 30 2021 Matthews Dylan September 24 2020 The legal theories of Amy Coney Barrett explained Vox Archived from the original on October 2 2020 Retrieved October 2 2020 a b Thomson DeVeaux Amelia October 14 2020 How Conservative Is Amy Coney Barrett FiveThirtyEight Archived from the original on December 11 2020 Retrieved October 14 2020 a b Chung Andrew Hurley Lawrence October 25 2020 Analysis U S Supreme Court nominee Barrett often rules for police in excessive force cases Reuters Archived from the original on October 25 2020 Retrieved October 25 2020 End Qualified Immunity Cato Institute Archived from the original on November 2 2020 Retrieved November 3 2020 Schweikert Jay June 15 2020 The Supreme Court s Dereliction of Duty on Qualified Immunity Cato Institute Archived from the original on October 24 2020 Retrieved October 26 2020 Sollum Jacob October 15 2020 These 7th Circuit Decisions Suggest Amy Coney Barrett Takes a Constrained View of Qualified Immunity Reason a b Written responses by Amy Coney Barrett to questions from senators see questions 30 and 31 by U S Senator Booker and the answers to it by Amy Coney Barrett at page 175 in the document contained within the source CNN October 20 2020 Archived from the original on October 22 2020 Retrieved October 23 2020 Dias Elizabeth Liptak Adam September 28 2020 To Conservatives Barrett Has Perfect Combination of Attributes for Supreme Court The New York Times Archived from the original on September 24 2020 Retrieved September 25 2020 Bernick Evan July 3 2018 Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Statutory Interpretation Textualism Precedent Judicial Restraint and the Future of Chevron Yale Journal on Regulation Archived from the original on July 19 2020 Retrieved October 6 2020 Nourse Victoria October 4 2020 Op Ed Why Judge Barrett s legal philosophy is deeply antidemocratic Los Angeles Times Archived from the original on October 7 2020 Retrieved October 6 2020 a b c d Barrett Amy Coney Nagle John Copeland October 2016 Congressional Originalism Journal of Constitutional Law Philadelphia Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania 19 1 5 42 Archived from the original on October 14 2020 Retrieved October 2 2020 Kranish Michael Barnes Robert Boburg Sahwn Merimow Ann E September 26 2020 Amy Coney Barrett a disciple of Justice Scalia is poised to push the Supreme Court further right The Washington Post Archived from the original on September 27 2020 Retrieved September 27 2020 Matthews Dylan September 25 202 The legal theories of Amy Coney Barrett explained An expert explains originalism the Roberts Court and what a Justice Barrett might do Vox Archived from the original on October 2 2020 Retrieved October 2 2020 a b Whittington Keith E November 2013 Originalism A Critical Introduction Fordham Law Review New York City Fordham University 82 2 Archived from the original on October 16 2020 Retrieved October 11 2020 Barrett Amy Coney September 2020 2019 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture Assorted Canards of Contemporary Legal Analysis Redux Case Western Reserve Law Review Cleveland Ohio Case Western Reserve University Archived from the original on September 27 2020 Retrieved October 9 2020 Kendall Brent September 20 2020 Amy Coney Barrett Is Again a Top Contender for Supreme Court Nomination The Wall Street Journal Archived from the original on October 13 2020 Retrieved September 21 2020 Confirmation Battle Looms as Trump Picks Barrett for Supreme Court The New York Times September 29 2020 Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved September 30 2020 Joseph Cameron September 25 2020 Trump Plans to Pick Amy Coney Barrett to Replace RBG on the Supreme Court Vice News Archived from the original on October 30 2020 Retrieved September 30 2020 a b Barrett Amy Coney January 3 2017 Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty Constitutional Commentary St Paul Minnesota University of Minnesota Law School Archived from the original on September 23 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 a b Cross Jesse M Winter 2020 Legislative History in the Modern Congress PDF Harvard Journal on Legislation Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University 57 1 93 94 Archived PDF from the original on September 21 2020 Retrieved October 5 2020 a b c Barrett Amy Coney 2017 Congressional Insiders and Outsiders The University of Chicago Law Review Chicago Illinois University of Chicago 2017 2193 2212 Archived from the original on October 3 2020 Retrieved October 2 2020 a b Barrett Amy Coney January 2014 Suspension and Delegation Cornell Law Review Ithaca New York Cornell University Law School 99 2 251 326 Archived from the original on October 18 2020 Retrieved September 19 2020 Huq Aziz Ginsburg Tom March 23 2018 How to Lose Your Constitutional Democracy UCLA Law Review Los Angeles California UCLA School of Law 78 65 111 Archived from the original on April 5 2019 Retrieved October 7 2020 Barrett Amy Coney 2020 The Scope of the Suspension Clause National Constitution Center Archived from the original on September 28 2020 Retrieved October 2 2020 Jasinski Nicholas What to Know About Judge Amy Coney Barrett Trump s Supreme Court Nominee barrons com Archived from the original on October 8 2020 Retrieved October 8 2020 Barrett Could Be Most Conservative Justice Since Clarence Thomas Bloomberg Law Archived from the original on October 14 2020 Retrieved October 8 2020 10 things you need to know today September 27 2020 The Week September 27 2020 Archived from the original on October 8 2020 Retrieved October 8 2020 Greenhouse Linda October 8 2020 Opinion Questions for Amy Coney Barrett The New York Times Archived from the original on October 8 2020 Retrieved October 8 2020 Video Clip Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Precedent and Stare Decisis C SPAN October 13 2020 Archived from the original on October 24 2020 Retrieved October 28 2020 a b c d Barrett Amy C August 22 2013 Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement PDF Texas Law Review 91 7 1711 1734 35 Archived PDF from the original on July 21 2020 Retrieved September 26 2020 Fallon Richard H Jr June 1 2008 Constitutional Precedent Viewed through the Lens of Hartian Positivist Jurisprudence North Carolina Law Review 86 5 1116 Archived from the original on November 25 2020 Retrieved October 11 2020 a b Wolf Richard Groppe Maureen September 27 2020 On key issues Statements and rulings by Amy Coney Barrett South Bend Tribune Archived from the original on September 25 2020 Retrieved September 27 2020 Who Is Amy Coney Barrett Front Runner For The Supreme Court Nomination NPR Archived from the original on September 25 2020 Retrieved September 25 2020 Keith Katie September 20 2020 After Justice Ginsburg s Loss What A New Court Could Mean For The ACA Health Affairs Forefront doi 10 1377 forefront 20200920 954961 Liptak Adam October 1 2020 Amy Coney Barrett Trump s Supreme Court Pick Signed Anti Abortion Ad The New York Times Archived from the original on October 2 2020 Retrieved October 3 2020 Itkowitz Colby 2020 Who is Amy Coney Barrett the judge at the top of Trump s list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg The Washington Post Archived from the original on October 1 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 is fervently antiabortion Ramesh Ponnuru Barrett and That Pro Life Ad Archived February 14 2021 at the Wayback Machine National Review October 1 2020 Hughes Siobhan October 1 2020 Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett Signed Antiabortion Ad in 2006 The Wall Street Journal Archived from the original on October 4 2020 Retrieved October 1 2020 Barrett opposed abortion on demand raising doubts on Roe Associated Press October 1 2020 Archived from the original on October 1 2020 Retrieved October 2 2020 Papenfuss Mary October 10 2020 Amy Coney Barrett Submits Additional Anti Abortion Docs To Senate After Scrutiny HuffPost Archived from the original on October 10 2020 Retrieved October 10 2020 SouthBank Legal southbank legal Archived from the original on September 21 2020 Retrieved August 8 2020 Weiss Debra Cassens September 21 2020 A top SCOTUS contender Amy Coney Barrett is likely to draw scrutiny for decisions on abortion campus sex assault ABA Journal Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved September 29 2020 Class Notes Class of 1996 Notre Dame Magazine Winter 2012 2013 Archived from the original on March 29 2013 Retrieved May 8 2017 Keeley Matt September 20 2020 Who is Amy Coney Barrett s family Potential Supreme Court nominee is a mother of seven and has six siblings Newsweek Archived from the original on September 26 2020 Retrieved September 26 2020 Dias Elizabeth Liptak Adam September 21 2020 Who is Judge Amy Coney Barrett What to know about the leading contender to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg The New York Times Retrieved October 3 2020 via Boston com Escobar Allyson September 21 2020 Why do Catholics make up a majority of the Supreme Court America The Jesuit Review Archived from the original on September 22 2020 Retrieved November 13 2020 Boorstein Michelle October 16 2020 Amy Coney Barrett s People of Praise faith group has had a complicated relationship to Catholicism The Washington Post Archived from the original on October 18 2020 Retrieved October 18 2020 a b Parrott Jeff July 15 2018 Supreme Court opening shines spotlight on local religious group People of Praise South Bend Tribune Archived from the original on September 25 2020 Roberts Judy September 25 2020 The People of Praise Community What It Actually Is National Catholic Register Archived from the original on September 27 2020 Retrieved September 28 2020 a b Thorp Adam July 5 2018 6 things to know about People of Praise and Judge Amy Coney Barrett Chicago Sun Times Archived from the original on September 20 2020 Retrieved November 13 2020 High court nominee served as handmaid in religious group Associated Press October 7 2020 Archived from the original on October 8 2020 Retrieved October 8 2020 Brown Emma Swaine Jon Boorstein Michelle Amy Coney Barrett served as a handmaid in Christian group People of Praise The Washington Post Archived from the original on October 7 2020 Retrieved October 7 2020 Members American Law Institute Archived from the original on October 16 2019 Retrieved August 5 2020 Taylor Julia September 28 2020 Judge Amy Coney Barrett Selected Primary Material Congressional Research Service Archived from the original on October 12 2020 Retrieved October 13 2020 Further readingUnited States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Questionnaire for the Nominee to the Court of Appeals for Amy Coney Barrett 115th Cong 1st Sess September 2017 Questionnaire for the Nominee to the Supreme Court for Amy Coney Barrett 116th Cong 2nd Sess September 2020 Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar LSB10540 President Trump Nominates Judge Amy Coney Barrett Initial Observations by Victoria L Killion September 28 2020 Legal Sidebar LSB10539 Judge Amy Coney Barrett Selected Primary Material Coordinated by Julia Taylor September 28 2020 Report R46562 Judge Amy Coney Barrett Her Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court Coordinated by Valerie C Brannon Michael John Garcia and Caitlain Devereaux Lewis October 6 2020 External linksAmy Coney Barrett at Wikipedia s sister projects nbsp Media from Commons nbsp Quotations from Wikiquote nbsp Texts from Wikisource nbsp Data from Wikidata Amy Coney Barrett at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges a publication of the Federal Judicial Center Amy Coney Barrett at Ballotpedia Appearances on C SPAN Amy Coney Barrett publications indexed by the Scopus bibliographic database subscription required Selected Resources on Amy Coney Barrett from the Law Library of Congress Nomination Research Guide from the Georgetown University Law Center library Profile Archived April 2 2019 at the Wayback Machine at Notre Dame Law School Official Curriculum vitae by Notre Dame Law School The Suspension Clause by Amy Barrett and Neal K Katyal in the National Constitution Center Interactive Constitution Selected works of Amy Barrett University of Notre Dame The Law School Retrieved September 28 2020Legal officesPreceded byJohn Daniel Tinder Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit2017 2020 Succeeded byThomas KirschPreceded byRuth Bader Ginsburg Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States2020 present IncumbentU S order of precedence ceremonial Preceded byBrett Kavanaughas Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Order of precedence of the United Statesas Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Succeeded byKetanji Brown Jacksonas Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Amy Coney Barrett amp oldid 1192230091, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.