Amy Coney Barrett

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Amy Coney Barrett
Image of Amy Coney Barrett

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States
Tenure

2020 - Present

Years in position

4

Prior offices
United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Education

High school

St. Mary's Dominican High School, 1990

Bachelor's

Rhodes College, 1994

Law

Notre Dame Law School, 1997

Personal
Birthplace
New Orleans, La.

Amy Coney Barrett is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. She was President Donald Trump's (R) third nominee to the court. Trump nominated Barrett on September 29, 2020, following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death.[1] The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett on October 26, 2020, in 52-48 vote.[2] All Republicans except U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) voted to confirm Barrett, while no Democrats did so.[3] Barrett was 48 when she was confirmed.[4]

Barrett graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997, and was the only justice on the court without a Harvard or Yale law degree at the time she was confirmed.[5] She taught law at Notre Dame from 2002 to 2017, when Trump appointed her to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.[6][7]

During her confirmation hearings, Barrett said, "If you’re asking whether I take my faith seriously and I’m a faithful Catholic — I am, although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.”[8]

Barrett clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia in 1998, and later said: "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 might hold.”[9] Scalia, a conservative member of the court, defended a form of originalism, a legal principle that relies on historical review of the intent of a law or constitutional provision at the time of passage.[10]

An analysis of the political leanings of all nine justices in 2023 ranked Barrett as the fourth most conservative.[11]

In 2022, Barrett voted with the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case in which the court ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion. She also voted with the conservative majority in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, in a ruling that the federal government and the states possess overlapping jurisdiction to prosecute crimes on Indian reservations, and Carson v. Makin, finding Maine violated the Constitution when it excluded private religious schools from a state-funded tuition program.[12][13]

Barrett has broken from her conservative colleagues in some cases, including in VanDerStok v. Garland, in which Barrett, along with John Roberts, joined the liberal bloc in a 5-4 ruling to temporarily maintain federal regulations on gun kits purchased over the internet.[14] In 2024, Barrett joined Roberts in voting with the liberal bloc to reverse a lower court ruling that blocked the federal government from removing razor wire the Texas National Guard placed at the border to hamper border crossings.[15][16]


Professional career

Early life and education

Barrett was born in 1972 in New Orleans, Louisiana. She graduated from St. Mary's Dominican High School in New Orleans in 1990. She earned her bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, in English literature from Rhodes College in 1994 and her J.D., summa cum laude, from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. She was awarded the university's Hoynes Prize, which is the law school's highest honor. She also served as executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review.[18]

Approach to the law

Barrett has explained her judicial philosophy as originalist—interpreting the U.S. Constitution according to what the words meant to the individuals that wrote it—and textualist—interpreting a law based on the words on the page, not what Congress may have intended to do when the law was passed.[20] According to FiveThirtyEight's Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, Barrett was one of the most conservative judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.[21]

Martin-Quinn score

Barrett's Martin-Quinn score following the 2023-2024 term was 0.68, making her the fourth-most conservative justice on the court at that time. Martin-Quinn scores were developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn from the University of Michigan, and measure the justices of the Supreme Court along an ideological continuum. The further from zero on the scale, the more conservative (>0) or liberal (<0) the justice. The chart below details every justice's Martin-Quinn score for the 2023-2024 term. These are preliminary scores provided by Kevin Quinn that may differ slightly from the final version of the scores that Martin and Quinn will make publicly available at a later date.

Judicial nominations and appointments

United States Supreme Court (2020-present)

See also: Federal judges nominated by Donald Trump

On September 29, 2020, President Donald Trump (R) nominated Barrett as a judge on the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett on October 26, 2020, by a vote of 52-48.[2] She received commission the same day.[22]

  • To read more about Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, click here.
  • To read more about the federal nominations process, click here.
Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: Amy Coney Barrett
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 27 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: September 29, 2020
ApprovedAABA Rating: Substantial majority well qualified/Minority qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
ApprovedAHearing: October 12-15, 2020
QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: October 22, 2020 
ApprovedAConfirmed: October 26, 2020
ApprovedAVote: 52-48


Confirmation Vote

The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett by a vote of 52-48 on October 26, 2020. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican senator to vote against Barrett's confirmation.[2] To see a full breakdown of the vote on the official U.S. Senate website, click here.

Amy Coney Barrett confirmation vote (October 26, 2020)
Party Yea Nay No vote
Electiondot.png Democratic 0 45 0
Ends.png Republican 52 1 0
Grey.png Independent 0 2 0
Total 52 48 0

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings

See also: Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings

The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court from October 12 to October 15, 2020. The committee voted 12-0 on October 22 to advance her nomination to the full U.S. Senate. No Democratic committee members attended the meeting to vote on advancing her nomination.[23] For more information on Barrett's confirmation hearings, click here.

Below is a brief overview of the hearings:

  • Day four (10/15/2020): Two panels of witnesses on both sides of the confirmation spoke during the final day of the hearings. Witnesses in support of Barrett's confirmation included the American Bar Association, former Judge Thomas Griffith, a law school professor, a former student, and a former mentee and employee. Witnesses opposed to Barrett's confirmation included the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a medical doctor, a small business owner and activist, and a nonprofit leader.
  • Day three (10/14/2020): Senators questioned Judge Barrett for almost nine hours, with each senator allotted 20 minutes. Recurring themes in the questioning included abortion, election administration, immigration, and presidential power.
  • Day two (10/13/2020): Senators questioned Barrett for 11 hours, with each senator allotted 30 minutes. Recurring themes included abortion, the Affordable Care Act, election disputes, legal access to firearms, and same-sex marriage.
  • Day one (10/12/2020): Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) provided opening statements. Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) then introduced Barrett. After the introductions, Barrett gave her opening statement.

Nomination

On September 26, 2020, President Donald Trump (R) announced his intent to nominate Barrett as a judge on the Supreme Court of the United States.[24] The president officially nominated Barrett on September 29.[1]

Barrett was nominated to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on September 18, 2020.[24] For more information on the process to fill the 2020 Supreme Court vacancy, click here.

The American Bar Association rated Barrett well qualified by a substantial majority and qualified by a minority for the position.[25] To read more about ABA ratings, click here.

United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (2017-2020)

See also: Federal judges nominated by Donald Trump

Barrett was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit by President Donald Trump (R) on May 8, 2017. The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett on October 31, 2017, by a vote of 55-43.[6] She received commission on November 2, 2017, and left office on October 26, 2020, after her confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States.[22] To read more about the federal nomination process, click here.

Confirmation vote

The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett on October 31, 2017, on a vote of 55-43.[6] To see a full breakdown of the vote on the official U.S. Senate website, click here.

Amy Coney Barrett confirmation vote (October 31, 2017)
Party Yea Nay No vote
Electiondot.png Democratic 3 41 2
Ends.png Republican 52 0 0
Grey.png Independent 0 2 0
Total 55 43 2

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

Barrett had her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 6, 2017. The committee voted to advance Barrett's nomination to the full Senate on October 5, 2017.[6]

Nomination

Barrett was nominated to replace Judge John Tinder, who assumed senior status on February 18, 2015.

The American Bar Association rated Barrett well qualified by a majority and qualified by a minority for the position.[26] To read more about ABA ratings, click here.

Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court

See also: Supreme Court vacancy, 2020

President Donald Trump (R) nominated Barrett on September 29, 2020, to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court opened by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Trump said regarding the nomination:[27][28]

“ [Judge Amy Coney Barrett] is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution. … [She] will decide cases based on the text of the Constitution as written. As Amy has said, ‘Being a judge takes courage. You are not there to decide cases as you may prefer. You are there to do your duty and to follow the law wherever it may take you.’ That is exactly what Judge Barrett will do on the U.S. Supreme Court.[29] ”

Remarks in response to nomination

Barrett issued the statement below after President Trump announced his intent to nominate Barrett on September 26, 2020.[28]

Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am deeply honored by the confidence that you have placed in me. And I am so grateful to you and the First Lady, to the Vice President and the Second Lady, and to so many others here for your kindness on this rather overwhelming occasion.

I fully understand that this is a momentous decision for a President. And if the Senate does me the honor of confirming me, I pledge to discharge the responsibilities of this job to the very best of my ability. I love the United States, and I love the United States Constitution. I am truly— I am truly humbled by the prospect of serving on the Supreme Court.

Should I be confirmed, I will be mindful of who came before me. The flag of the United States is still flying at half-staff in memory of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to mark the end of a great American life. Justice Ginsburg began her career at a time when women were not welcome in the legal profession. But she not only broke glass ceilings, she smashed them. For that, she has won the admiration of women across the country and, indeed, all over the world.

She was a woman of enormous talent and consequence, and her life of public service serves as an example to us all. Particularly poignant to me was her long and deep friendship with Justice Antonin Scalia, my own mentor.

Justices Scalia and Ginsburg disagreed fiercely in print without rancor in person. Their ability to maintain a warm and rich friendship, despite their differences, even inspired an opera. These two great Americans demonstrated that arguments, even about matters of great consequence, need not destroy affection. In both my personal and professional relationships, I strive to meet that standard.

I was lucky enough to clerk for Justice Scalia, and given his incalculable influence on my life, I am very moved to have members of the Scalia family here today, including his dear wife, Maureen.

I clerked for Justice Scalia more than 20 years ago, but the lessons I learned still resonate. 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 might hold. The President has asked me to become the ninth justice, and as it happens, I’m used to being in a group of nine: my family.

Our family includes me, my husband Jesse, Emma, Vivian, Tess, John Peter, Liam, Juliet, and Benjamin. Vivian and John Peter, as the President said, were born in Haiti and they came to us, five years apart, when they were very young. And the most revealing fact about Benjamin, our youngest, is that his brothers and sisters unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling.

Our children obviously make our life very full. While I am a judge, I’m better known back home as a room parent, carpool driver, and birthday party planner. When schools went remote last spring, I tried on another hat. Jesse and I became co-principals of the Barrett e-learning academy. And, yes, the list of enrolled students was a very long one.

Our children are my greatest joy, even though they deprive me of any reasonable amount of sleep. I couldn’t manage this very full life without the unwavering support of my husband, Jesse. At the start of our marriage, I imagined that we would run our household as partners. As it has turned out, Jesse does far more than his share of the work. To my chagrin, I learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook.

For 21 years, Jesse has asked me, every single morning, what he can do for me that day. And though I almost always say “nothing,” he still finds ways to take things off my plate. And that’s not because he has a lot of free time — he has a busy law practice — it’s because he is a superb and generous husband, and I am very fortunate.

Jesse and I have a life full of relationships, not only with our children, but with siblings, friends, and fearless babysitters, one of whom is with us today. I am particularly grateful to my parents, Mike and Linda Coney. I spent the bulk of — I have spent the bulk of my adulthood as a Midwesterner, but I grew up in their New Orleans home. And as my brother and sisters can also attest, Mom and Dad’s generosity extends not only to us, but to more people than any of us could count. They are an inspiration.

It is important at a moment like this to acknowledge family and friends. But this evening, I also want to acknowledge you, my fellow Americans. The President has nominated me to serve on the United States Supreme Court, and that institution belongs to all of us.

If confirmed, I would not assume that role for the sake of those in my own circle, and certainly not for my own sake. I would assume this role to serve you. I would discharge the judicial oath, which requires me to administer justice without respect to persons, do equal right to the poor and rich, and faithfully and impartially discharge my duties under the United States Constitution.

I have no illusions that the road ahead of me will be easy, either for the short term or the long haul. I never imagined that I would find myself in this position. But now that I am, I assure you that I will meet the challenge with both humility and courage.

Members of the United States Senate, I look forward to working with you during the confirmation process, and I will do my very best to demonstrate that I am worthy of your support. Thank you.

Possible Donald Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court

2018

See also: Possible nominees to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court and Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia

Barrett was listed by President Donald Trump (R) as a potential Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy announced he would retire from the court effective July 31, 2018.[30] Trump ultimately chose Brett Kavanaugh as the nominee.

Views on the administrative state

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a public interest law firm with a focus on the administrative state, published an assessment of potential replacements for Justice Anthony Kennedy based on how each of them approached questions about the administrative state.[31][32]

Its 2018 assessment of Barrett concluded that she "has not authored significant judicial opinions or publications directly on administrative law or the various deference doctrines."[31]

However, the NCLA quotes from the abstract of an article written by Barrett for the Cornell Law Review that seems to support the nondelegation doctrine, an administrative law that holds that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to executive agencies or private entities:[31]

“
Despite the traditional emphasis on the importance of exclusive legislative authority over suspension, the statutes that Congress has enacted are in tension with it. Each of the suspension statutes has delegated broad authority to the President, permitting him in almost every case to decide whether, when, where, and for how long to exercise emergency power. Indeed, if all these prior statutes are constitutional, Congress could today enact a law authorizing the President to suspend the writ in Guantanamo Bay if he decides at some point in the (perhaps distant) future that the constitutional prerequisites are satisfied. Such a broad delegation undermines the structural benefits that allocating the suspension decision to Congress is designed to achieve. This Article explores whether such delegations are constitutionally permissible. It concludes that while the Suspension Clause does not prohibit Congress from giving the President some responsibility for the suspension decision, it does require Congress to decide the most significant constitutional predicates for itself that an invasion or rebellion has occurred and that protecting the public safety may require the exercise of emergency power.[29] 		”

2017

On November 17, 2017, Barrett was included in a third list of individuals from which President Donald Trump would choose to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court.

A White House statement announcing the nominees stated,[33]

“

One year ago, President Donald J. Trump was elected to restore the rule of law and to Make the Judiciary Great Again. Following the successful confirmation of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States and the nomination of more than seventy Federal judges—including five individuals from his Supreme Court list—President Trump today announced that he is refreshing his Supreme Court list with five additional judges. President Trump will choose a nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, from this updated list of 25 individuals. The President remains deeply committed to identifying and selecting outstanding jurists in the mold of Justice Gorsuch. These additions, like those on the original list released more than a year ago, were selected with input from respected conservative leaders.[29]

”

Supreme Court statistics

Opinions by year

Below is a table of the number of opinions, concurrences, and dissents that Barrett has issued since joining the Supreme Court according to the data from Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute and from the annual Stat Pack produced by the website SCOTUSBlog. This information is updated annually at the end of each term.[34] Information for the 2022 term is from a dataset provided by Dr. Adam Feldman, author of Empirical SCOTUS. Data for the 2022-2023 term does not include concurrences and dissents in part. Information for the 2023-2024 term is from the Empirical SCOTUS 2023 Stat Review.

Opinions written by year, Barrett
2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024
Opinions 4 6 6 6
Concurrences 1 4 6 7
Dissents 3 2 1 2
Totals 8 12 13 15

Justice agreement

An agreement rate indicates how often two justices were on the same side of the court's decision. A disagreement rate indicates how often two justices were on opposite sides of the court's decision.

In the 2023-2024 term, Barrett had the highest agreement rate with Brett Kavanaugh. Barrett had the lowest agreement rate with Ketanji Brown Jackson.[35] In the 2022-2023 term, Barrett had the highest agreement rate with Brett Kavanaugh, and the lowest agreement rate with Ketanji Brown Jackson.[36] This does not include agreements in part.

The table below highlights Barrett's agreement rate with each justice on the court during that term.[37][38]

Amy Coney Barrett agreement rates by term, 2020 - Present
Justice 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024
John Roberts 84% 89% 89% 88%
Clarence Thomas 85% 87% 82% 81%
Stephen Breyer 64% 56% NA NA
Samuel Alito 87% 90% 78% 81%
Sonia Sotomayor 58% 48% 76% 69%
Elena Kagan 69% 57% 78% 69%
Neil Gorsuch 91% 81% 80% 78%
Brett Kavanaugh 91% 89% 91% 90%
Ketanji Brown Jackson N/A N/A 75% 68%

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Barrett was in the majority in 92 percent of decisions. She was in the majority more often than six other justices.[35] In the 2022-2023 term, Barrett was in the majority in 91 percent of decisions. She was in the majority more often than five other justices.[36][39][40]

Since the 2020-2021 term, Barrett has been in the majority more than 80 percent of the time four times. Across those terms, she has been in the majority on average 91 percent of the time.[41][42][35][36]




Noteworthy Supreme Court cases

The noteworthy cases listed in this section include any case where the justice authored a 5-4 majority opinion or an 8-1 dissent. Other cases may be included in this section if they set or overturn an established legal precedent, are a major point of discussion in an election campaign, receive substantial media attention related to the justice's ruling, or based on our editorial judgment that the case is noteworthy. For more on how we decide which cases are noteworthy, click here.


Since she joined the court through the 2021-2022 term, Barrett authored the majority opinion in a 5-4 decision one time and had not authored a dissent in an 8-1 decision.

The table below details these cases by year.

Amy Coney Barrett noteworthy cases
Year 5-4 majority opinion 8-1 dissenting opinion
Total 1 0
2021-2022 1 0
2020-2021 0 0

U.S. Supreme Court noteworthy opinions

No right to abortion under the U.S. Constitution (2022)

See also: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Barrett joined the 6-3 majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Associate Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, which was also joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the majority to uphold Mississippi's abortion law but not to overturn Roe and Casey. Alito wrote:

“ We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The right to abortion does not fall within this category.[29]

”
—Justice Alito

Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker (2020)

See also: Lawsuits about state actions and policies in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, 2020-2021

Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: On June 15, 2020, the Illinois Republican Party, together with three local Republican groups, filed suit against Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In their complaint, Republicans argued that their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated because, "unlike churches, political parties are barred from gathering in groups greater than 10 under the Governor’s Executive Order 2020-38." Republicans said that "[w]hen the state grants access to one set of speakers, it must give equal access and treatment to all speakers of a similar character," contrasting their treatment to both that of churches and protesters. They have asked the court to enjoin the state from enforcing Executive Order 2020-38 against political parties. Pritzker’s spokeswoman, Jordan Abudayyeh, said, "[As] the Republicans who attended protests against the public health guidance are well aware, the State has never prevented people from exercising their First Amendment rights."[43][44]

On July 2, 2020, Judge Sara Lee Ellis, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, denied Republicans' motion for an injunction against the gathering-size restriction (which was subsequently raised to 50 people). Republicans appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On Sept. 3, a three-judge panel rejected the appeal, finding that precedent "does not compel the Governor to treat all gatherings alike." The panel further concluded that "free exercise of religion enjoys express constitutional protection, and the Governor was entitled to carve out some room for religion, even while he declined to do so for other activities." Finally, the court emphasized that re-subjecting religious gatherings to the mandatory cap would "leave the Republicans no better off than they are today." Chief Judge Diane Wood and Judges Amy St. Eve and Amy Coney Barrett sat on the panel and were unanimous in their decision.[45][46]

Daniel Suhr, counsel for the Republican Party, said in a statement, "We are disappointed in the decision, respectfully disagree with it, and are considering our options."[47]

Price v. City of Chicago (2019)

A Chicago ordinance banned sidewalk counselors from approaching within 8 feet of someone, without consent, if they are within 50 feet of the entrance of an abortion clinic or other medical facility. The plaintiffs alleged, “Under the ordinance, one can, without consent, approach a person within the ‘bubble zone’ to solicit donations for a charity, sell Cubs tickets, campaign for a candidate, or panhandle” but they may not approach to educate or counsel regarding abortion.[48] Barrett joined in the unanimous opinion upholding the ordinance. The court found that while recent Supreme Court decisions regarding free speech had shaken the precedent of Hill v. Colorado, which allowed buffer zones around the entrance to medical facilities, the 7th Circuit did not have the authority to overturn the Court’s ruling in Hill. The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the ruling with only Justice Clarence Thomas voting in favor of granting cert. [49]

Kanter v. Barr (2019)

In this Second Amendment case, the plaintiff was convicted of Medicare-related mail fraud and, as a convicted felon, was ineligible to possess a firearm. The majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as "substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence." Barrett dissented that felons are not stripped of their right to bear arms based solely on their status as felons. Rather, the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes. Barrett argued, however, that there is no evidence that denying guns to non-violent felons promotes this interest. Barrett wrote that the Second Amendment “confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense and not limited to civic participation.”[50][51][52]

Doe v. Purdue University (2019)

Barrett authored a unanimous decision reinstating a lawsuit brought by a male Purdue University student who had been found guilty of sexual assault by Purdue University resulting in a one-year suspension, loss of his Navy ROTC scholarship, and expulsion from the ROTC which negatively affected his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy. Doe alleged the school’s disciplinary process discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process. The school’s investigator relied on a statement written on the accuser’s behalf by the campus victims’ rights office and deemed the accuser more credible despite never interviewing her.[53][54] Doe was not allowed to present witnesses in the school’s hearing and two of the three members of the school’s panel said they had not read the investigator’s report.[55] Barrett wrote that Purdue’s process for evaluating the assault claims “fell short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension.”[51] Because of the circumstances in which the disciplinary procedure prevented Doe from pursuing his chosen career in the Navy, the court found that Doe had adequately alleged that he was deprived of his occupational liberty without due process.

The court also allowed the plaintiff’s Title IX claim to proceed. Barrett found that because of the particular facts of this case, in combination with the 2011 letter from the Department of Education to colleges and universities warning schools to vigorously investigate and punish sexual misconduct or risk losing federal funds, it was plausible that the school found in favor of the accuser because she is a woman and did not believe John Doe because he is a man.[51] The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. Barrett’s approach regarding Title IX gender discrimination cases was adopted by at least two other circuits since the Doe v. Purdue ruling.[56]


See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Congress.gov, "PN2252 — Amy Coney Barrett — Supreme Court of the United States," accessed September 30, 2020
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 CBS News, "Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court," October 26, 2020
  3. ↑ Politico, "Senate confirms Barrett to Supreme Court, sealing a conservative majority for decades," October 26, 2020
  4. ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "Amy Coney Barrett and the Makeup of the Courts," October 28, 2020
  5. ↑ Bloomberg, There's a Lot of Harvard and Yale on the Supreme Court. And That's OK.," August 7, 2022
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 United States Congress, "PN 369 — Amy Coney Barrett — The Judiciary," accessed October 31, 2017
  7. ↑ Notre Dame Law School, "Amy Coney Barrett," accessed April 15, 2021
  8. ↑ Associated Press, "Her words: Amy Coney Barrett on faith, precedent, abortion," October 11, 2020
  9. ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court," October 6, 2020
  10. ↑ William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, "Justice Scalia’s Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping the Law," accessed February 29, 2024
  11. ↑ Axios, "The political leanings of the Supreme Court justices," July 3, 2023
  12. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "In 5-4 ruling, court dramatically expands the power of states to prosecute crimes on reservations," June 29, 2022
  13. ↑ Columbia University, "Carson v. Makin Echoes Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue," accessed February 29, 2024
  14. ↑ Slate, "The Big Question Behind Amy Coney Barrett’s Surprise Vote on Ghost Guns," August 8, 2023
  15. ↑ Newsweek, "Amy Coney Barrett Under Fire for Siding With Biden on the Border," January 22, 2024
  16. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Justices Allow Removal of Texas’ Razor Wire on US-Mexico Border," January 23, 2024
  17. ↑ Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin LLP merged with Baker Botts LLP in 2001.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Senate Judiciary Committee, "Questionnaire for judicial nominees," accessed September 28, 2020
  19. ↑ Oyez, "Amy Coney Barrett," accessed April 8, 2021
  20. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Who is Amy Coney Barrett?" September 28, 2020
  21. ↑ FiveThirtyEight, "What Kind Of Supreme Court Justice Will Amy Coney Barrett Be?" October 26, 2020
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Federal Judicial Center, "Barrett, Amy Coney," accessed September 28, 2020
  23. ↑ Senate Judiciary Committee, "Results of Executive Business Meeting," October 22, 2020
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 The White House, "President Donald J. Trump Announces Intent to Nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States," September 26, 2020
  25. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III and Article IV judicial nominees," accessed October 12, 2020
  26. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III and Article IV judicial nominees," accessed April 20, 2020
  27. ↑ CNN, "Trump to announce Supreme Court nominee," September 26, 2020
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 The White House, "Remarks by President Trump Announcing His Nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States," accessed April 15, 2021
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  30. ↑ CBS News, "Trump says Justice Kennedy's replacement will come from list of 25," June 27, 2018
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 New Civil Liberties Alliance, "NCLA Ranks the Short List of Candidates to Replace Justice Kennedy," July 6, 2018
  32. ↑ New Civil Liberties Alliance, "About the Organization," accessed July 9, 2018
  33. ↑ The White House, "President Donald J. Trump Announces Five Additions to Supreme Court List," November 17, 2017
  34. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Stat Pack for the Supreme Court’s 2020-21 term," July 2, 2021
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Empirical SCOTUS, "2023 Stat Review," July 1, 2024
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Empirical SCOTUS, "Another One Bites the Dust: End of 2022/2023 Supreme Court Term Statistics," November 16, 2023
  37. ↑ Due to a change in the 2020 stat pack format, the agreement rate uses the rate of agreement in judgment.
  38. ↑ Due to a change in the 2021 stat pack format, the agreement rate uses the rate of agreement in judgment.
  39. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "2020-21 Stat pack: Frequency in the majority," July 2, 2021
  40. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named OT21
  41. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "OT18 Frequency in the Majority," accessed July 3, 2019
  42. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named sbot21
  43. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: Complaint," June 15, 2020
  44. ↑ WTTW, "Illinois GOP Sues Gov. Pritzker Over Ban on Large Gatherings," June 16, 2020
  45. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, "Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: Order," September 3, 2020
  46. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: Opinion and Order," July 2, 2020
  47. ↑ Law360, "7th Circ. Keeps Illinois' COVID-19 Quarantine Order Afloat," September 3, 2020
  48. ↑ Washington Post, "Supreme Court leaves in place laws in Chicago, Pennsylvania that restrict antiabortion protesters," July 2, 2020
  49. ↑ Justia, "Price v. Chicago, No. 17-2196 (7th Cir. 2019)," accessed September 23, 2020
  50. ↑ Duke Center for Firearms Law, "Dangerous, Unvirtuous Felons and the Scope of the Second Amendment," May 29, 2019
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 SCOTUSblog, "Profile of a potential nominee: Amy Coney Barrett," September 21, 2019
  52. ↑ Justia, "Kanter v. Barr, No. 18-1478 (7th Cir. 2019)," accessed September 23, 2020
  53. ↑ Justia, "Doe v. Purdue University, No. 17-3565 (7th Cir. 2019)," accessed September 23, 2020
  54. ↑ City Journal, "Returning Due Process to Campus," July 17, 2019
  55. ↑ Washington Post, "Amy Coney Barrett, potential Supreme Court nominee, wrote influential ruling on campus sexual assault," September 20, 2020
  56. ↑ The Indiana Lawyer, "7th Circuit’s reasoning in Purdue sex misconduct case getting nod," September 2, 2020

Political offices
Preceded by
- 		Supreme Court of the United States
2020-Present		 Succeeded by
-
Preceded by
- 		United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
2017-2020		 Succeeded by
-


Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Amy_Coney_Barrett&oldid=9657625"