Amy Coney Barrett
2020 - Present
3
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
- 2020-present: Associate justice, Supreme Court of the United States
- 2017-2020: Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
- 2002-2017: Professor of law, Notre Dame Law School
- 2001-2002: John M. Olin Fellow in Law, George Washington University School of Law
- 1999-2001: Private practice, Washington, D.C.
- 2001: Associate, Baker Botts LLP
- 1999-2000: Associate, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin LLP[17]
- 1998-1999: Law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States
- 1997-1998: Law clerk to Judge Laurence H. Silberman, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit[18][19]
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.
Nominee Information |
---|
Name: Amy Coney Barrett |
Court: Supreme Court of the United States |
Progress |
Confirmed 27 days after nomination. |
![]() |
![]() |
Questionnaire: Questionnaire |
![]() |
QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
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 | ||||||
![]() |
0 | 45 | 0 | ||||||
![]() |
52 | 1 | 0 | ||||||
![]() |
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 | ||||||
![]() |
3 | 41 | 2 | ||||||
![]() |
52 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
![]() |
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]
|
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 | K.A. | K.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)
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). |
” |
—Justice Alito |
Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker (2020)
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
- Supreme Court vacancy, 2020
- Supreme Court of the United States
- United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
External links
- Search Google News for this topic
- Judge Barrett's biography from the Federal Judicial Center
- Supreme Court of the United States website
- United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit website
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Congress.gov, "PN2252 — Amy Coney Barrett — Supreme Court of the United States," accessed September 30, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 CBS News, "Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court," October 26, 2020
- ↑ Politico, "Senate confirms Barrett to Supreme Court, sealing a conservative majority for decades," October 26, 2020
- ↑ U.S. News & World Report, "Amy Coney Barrett and the Makeup of the Courts," October 28, 2020
- ↑ Bloomberg, There's a Lot of Harvard and Yale on the Supreme Court. And That's OK.," August 7, 2022
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 United States Congress, "PN 369 — Amy Coney Barrett — The Judiciary," accessed October 31, 2017
- ↑ Notre Dame Law School, "Amy Coney Barrett," accessed April 15, 2021
- ↑ Associated Press, "Her words: Amy Coney Barrett on faith, precedent, abortion," October 11, 2020
- ↑ Congressional Research Service, "Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court," October 6, 2020
- ↑ William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, "Justice Scalia’s Bottom-Up Approach to Shaping the Law," accessed February 29, 2024
- ↑ Axios, "The political leanings of the Supreme Court justices," July 3, 2023
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "In 5-4 ruling, court dramatically expands the power of states to prosecute crimes on reservations," June 29, 2022
- ↑ Columbia University, "Carson v. Makin Echoes Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue," accessed February 29, 2024
- ↑ Slate, "The Big Question Behind Amy Coney Barrett’s Surprise Vote on Ghost Guns," August 8, 2023
- ↑ Newsweek, "Amy Coney Barrett Under Fire for Siding With Biden on the Border," January 22, 2024
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Justices Allow Removal of Texas’ Razor Wire on US-Mexico Border," January 23, 2024
- ↑ Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin LLP merged with Baker Botts LLP in 2001.
- ↑ 18.0 18.1 Senate Judiciary Committee, "Questionnaire for judicial nominees," accessed September 28, 2020
- ↑ Oyez, "Amy Coney Barrett," accessed April 8, 2021
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Who is Amy Coney Barrett?" September 28, 2020
- ↑ FiveThirtyEight, "What Kind Of Supreme Court Justice Will Amy Coney Barrett Be?" October 26, 2020
- ↑ 22.0 22.1 Federal Judicial Center, "Barrett, Amy Coney," accessed September 28, 2020
- ↑ Senate Judiciary Committee, "Results of Executive Business Meeting," October 22, 2020
- ↑ 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
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III and Article IV judicial nominees," accessed October 12, 2020
- ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III and Article IV judicial nominees," accessed April 20, 2020
- ↑ CNN, "Trump to announce Supreme Court nominee," September 26, 2020
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ CBS News, "Trump says Justice Kennedy's replacement will come from list of 25," June 27, 2018
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 New Civil Liberties Alliance, "NCLA Ranks the Short List of Candidates to Replace Justice Kennedy," July 6, 2018
- ↑ New Civil Liberties Alliance, "About the Organization," accessed July 9, 2018
- ↑ The White House, "President Donald J. Trump Announces Five Additions to Supreme Court List," November 17, 2017
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Stat Pack for the Supreme Court’s 2020-21 term," July 2, 2021
- ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 Empirical SCOTUS, "2023 Stat Review," July 1, 2024
- ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 Empirical SCOTUS, "Another One Bites the Dust: End of 2022/2023 Supreme Court Term Statistics," November 16, 2023
- ↑ Due to a change in the 2020 stat pack format, the agreement rate uses the rate of agreement in judgment.
- ↑ Due to a change in the 2021 stat pack format, the agreement rate uses the rate of agreement in judgment.
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "2020-21 Stat pack: Frequency in the majority," July 2, 2021
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs namedOT21
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "OT18 Frequency in the Majority," accessed July 3, 2019
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>
tag; no text was provided for refs namedsbot21
- ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: Complaint," June 15, 2020
- ↑ WTTW, "Illinois GOP Sues Gov. Pritzker Over Ban on Large Gatherings," June 16, 2020
- ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, "Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: Order," September 3, 2020
- ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker: Opinion and Order," July 2, 2020
- ↑ Law360, "7th Circ. Keeps Illinois' COVID-19 Quarantine Order Afloat," September 3, 2020
- ↑ Washington Post, "Supreme Court leaves in place laws in Chicago, Pennsylvania that restrict antiabortion protesters," July 2, 2020
- ↑ Justia, "Price v. Chicago, No. 17-2196 (7th Cir. 2019)," accessed September 23, 2020
- ↑ Duke Center for Firearms Law, "Dangerous, Unvirtuous Felons and the Scope of the Second Amendment," May 29, 2019
- ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 SCOTUSblog, "Profile of a potential nominee: Amy Coney Barrett," September 21, 2019
- ↑ Justia, "Kanter v. Barr, No. 18-1478 (7th Cir. 2019)," accessed September 23, 2020
- ↑ Justia, "Doe v. Purdue University, No. 17-3565 (7th Cir. 2019)," accessed September 23, 2020
- ↑ City Journal, "Returning Due Process to Campus," July 17, 2019
- ↑ Washington Post, "Amy Coney Barrett, potential Supreme Court nominee, wrote influential ruling on campus sexual assault," September 20, 2020
- ↑ 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 - |
| |||
---|---|---|---|
Active judges |
Chief Judge: Diane Sykes • Amy St. Eve • Frank Easterbrook • John Z. Lee (United States Court of Appeals judge) • Michael B. Brennan (Wisconsin) • Michael Scudder • Joshua Kolar • Doris Pryor • Thomas Kirsch • Candace Jackson-Akiwumi • Nancy Maldonado | ||
Senior judges |
Diane Wood • Joel Flaum • Daniel Manion • Ilana Rovner • David Hamilton (Seventh Circuit) • Kenneth Ripple • William Bauer • | ||
Former judges | John Paul Stevens • Ann Williams (Federal judge) • Julian William Mack • Terence Evans • Michael Kanne • Richard Posner • John Coffey (Seventh Circuit) • Jesse Eschbach • Walter Quintin Gresham • Richard Cudahy • Thomas Fairchild • Philip Tone • William Allen Woods • James Graham Jenkins (Wisconsin) • William Henry Seaman • John William Showalter • Peter Stenger Grosscup • Christian Cecil Kohlsaat • Albert Barnes Anderson • Francis Elisha Baker • Samuel Alschuler • Evan Alfred Evans • Louis FitzHenry • George True Page • Walter Lindley • William Morris Sparks • James Earl Major • Walter Treanor • Francis Duffy • Otto Kerner, Sr. • Otto Kerner, Jr. • Harlington Wood • Winfred Knoch • William Parkinson (Indiana) • Luther Swygert • Sherman Minton • Latham Castle • Walter Cummings • Philip Finnegan • John Hastings • Roger Kiley • Wilbur Pell • Elmer Schnackenberg • Robert Sprecher • Hardress Swaim • Amy Coney Barrett • | ||
Former Chief judges |
Diane Wood • Joel Flaum • Richard Posner • William Bauer • Thomas Fairchild • William Morris Sparks • James Earl Major • Francis Duffy • Luther Swygert • Latham Castle • Walter Cummings • John Hastings • |
| |||
---|---|---|---|
2017 |
Thomas Parker • Elizabeth Branch • Neil Gorsuch • Amul Thapar • David C. Nye • John K. Bush • Kevin Newsom • Timothy J. Kelly • Ralph Erickson • Scott Palk • Trevor McFadden • Joan Larsen • Amy Coney Barrett • Allison Eid • Stephanos Bibas • Donald Coggins Jr. • Dabney Friedrich • Greg Katsas • Steven Grasz • Don Willett • James Ho • William L. Campbell Jr. • David Stras • Tilman E. Self III • Karen Gren Scholer • Terry A. Doughty • Claria Horn Boom • John Broomes • Rebecca Grady Jennings • Kyle Duncan • Kurt Engelhardt • Michael B. Brennan • Joel Carson • Robert Wier • Fernando Rodriguez Jr. • Annemarie Carney Axon • | ||
2018 |
Andrew Oldham • Amy St. Eve • Michael Scudder • John Nalbandian • Mark Bennett • Andrew Oldham • Britt Grant • Colm Connolly • Maryellen Noreika • Jill Otake • Jeffrey Beaverstock • Emily Coody Marks • Holly Lou Teeter • Julius Richardson • Charles B. Goodwin • Barry Ashe • Stan Baker • A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. • Terry F. Moorer • Susan Baxter • William Jung • Alan Albright • Dominic Lanza • Eric Tostrud • Charles Williams • Nancy E. Brasel • James Sweeney • Kari A. Dooley • Marilyn J. Horan • Robert Summerhays • Brett Kavanaugh • David Porter • Liles Burke • Michael Juneau • Peter Phipps • Lance Walker • Richard Sullivan • Eli Richardson • Ryan Nelson • Chad F. Kenney, Sr. • Susan Brnovich • William M. Ray, II • Jeremy Kernodle • Thomas Kleeh • J.P. Hanlon • Mark Norris • Jonathan Kobes • Michael Brown • David Counts | ||
2019 |
Eric Miller • Chad Readler • Eric Murphy • Neomi Rao • Paul Matey • Allison Jones Rushing • Bridget S. Bade • Roy Altman • Patrick Wyrick • Holly Brady • David Morales • Andrew Brasher • J. Campbell Barker • Rodolfo Ruiz • Daniel Domenico • Michael Truncale • Michael Park • Joseph Bianco • Raúl Arias-Marxuach • Daniel Collins • Joshua Wolson • Wendy Vitter • Kenneth Kiyul Lee • Kenneth Bell • Stephen Clark • Howard Nielson • Rodney Smith • Jean-Paul Boulee • Sarah Daggett Morrison • Rossie Alston • Pamela A. Barker • Corey Maze • Greg Guidry • Matthew Kacsmaryk • Allen Winsor • Carl Nichols • James Cain, Jr. • Tom Barber • J. Nicholas Ranjan • Clifton L. Corker • Peter Phipps • Daniel Bress • Damon Leichty • Wendy W. Berger • Peter Welte • Michael Liburdi • William Shaw Stickman • Mark Pittman • Karin J. Immergut • Jason Pulliam • Brantley Starr • Brian Buescher • James Wesley Hendrix • Timothy Reif • Martha Pacold • Sean Jordan • Mary Rowland • John M. Younge • Jeff Brown • Ada Brown • Steven Grimberg • Stephanie A. Gallagher • Steven Seeger • Stephanie Haines • Mary McElroy • David J. Novak • Frank W. Volk • Charles Eskridge • Rachel Kovner • Justin Walker • T. Kent Wetherell • Danielle Hunsaker • Lee Rudofsky • Jennifer Philpott Wilson • William Nardini • Steven Menashi • Robert J. Luck • Eric Komitee • Douglas Cole • John Sinatra • Sarah Pitlyk • Barbara Lagoa • Richard Myers II • Sherri Lydon • Patrick Bumatay • R. Austin Huffaker • Miller Baker • Anuraag Singhal • Karen Marston • Jodi Dishman • Mary Kay Vyskocil • Matthew McFarland • John Gallagher • Bernard Jones • Kea Riggs • Robert J. Colville • Stephanie Dawkins Davis • Gary R. Brown • David Barlow • Lewis Liman | ||
2020 |
Lawrence VanDyke • Daniel Traynor • John Kness • Joshua Kindred • Philip Halpern • Silvia Carreno-Coll • Scott Rash • John Heil • Anna Manasco • John L. Badalamenti • Drew Tipton • Andrew Brasher • Cory Wilson • Scott Hardy • David Joseph • Matthew Schelp • John Cronan • Justin Walker • Brett H. Ludwig • Christy Wiegand • Thomas Cullen • Diane Gujarati • Stanley Blumenfeld • Mark Scarsi • John Holcomb • Stephen P. McGlynn • Todd Robinson • Hala Jarbou • David Dugan • Iain D. Johnston • Franklin U. Valderrama • John Hinderaker • Roderick Young • Michael Newman • Aileen Cannon • James Knepp • Kathryn Kimball Mizelle • Benjamin Beaton • Kristi Johnson • Toby Crouse • Philip Calabrese • Taylor McNeel • Thomas Kirsch • Stephen Vaden • Katherine Crytzer • Fernando Aenlle-Rocha • Charles Atchley • Joseph Dawson |