Edit filter log

'{{Short description|American judge}} {{Use American English|date=August 2020}} {{Use mdy dates|date=July 2018}} {{Infobox officeholder | name = Amy Coney Barrett | image = Amy Coney Barrett.jpg | caption = Barrett in 2018 | alt = Barrett wearing a judicial robe | office = Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]] | appointer = [[Donald Trump]] | term_start = November 2, 2017 | term_end = | predecessor = [[John Daniel Tinder]] | successor = | birth_name = Amy Vivian Coney | birth_date = {{birth date and age|1972|1|28}} | birth_place = [[New Orleans]], [[Louisiana]], U.S. | death_date = | death_place = | spouse = Jesse Barrett | education = [[Rhodes College]] ([[Bachelor of Arts|BA]])<br />[[University of Notre Dame]] ([[Juris Doctor|JD]]) | module = {{Infobox academic | child = yes | website = {{url|http://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/|Notre Dame Law Biography}} | workplaces = [[University of Notre Dame]] | discipline = [[Jurisprudence]]}} }} '''Amy Vivian Coney Barrett''' (born January 28, 1972)<ref name="National Catholic Register (2017)">{{cite news |author = Editors |title = JFK, Amy Coney Barrett and Anti-Catholicism |date = September 22, 2017 |newspaper = [[National Catholic Register]] |url = http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/jfk-amy-coney-barrett-and-anti-catholicism |access-date = October 7, 2017 |archive-url = https://archive.today/20171007150736/http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/jfk-amy-coney-barrett-and-anti-catholicism |archive-date = October 7, 2017 |url-status = live }}</ref><ref name="FJC Bio">{{Cite web|url=https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/barrett-amy-coney|work=History of the Federal Judiciary|title=Barrett, Amy Coney|publisher=Federal Judicial Center|access-date=July 7, 2018}}</ref> is an American lawyer, jurist, and former academic who serves as a [[United States Circuit Judge|circuit judge]] on the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]]. Barrett considers herself a [[Original meaning|public-meaning]] [[Originalism|originalist]]; her judicial philosophy has been likened to that of her mentor and former boss, [[Antonin Scalia]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Statutory Interpretation: Textualism, Precedent, Judicial Restraint, and the Future of Chevron|first=Evan|last=Bernick|url=https://www.yalejreg.com/nc/judge-amy-coney-barrett-on-statutory-interpretation-textualism-precedent-judicial-restraint-and-the-future-of-chevron-by-evan-bernick/|access-date=2020-08-19|website=Yale Journal on Regulation|language=en-US}}</ref> Barrett's scholarship focuses on originalism, statutory interpretation, and ''[[stare decisis]]''.<ref name=bio/> Barrett was nominated to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by President [[Donald Trump]] on May 8, 2017 and confirmed by the Senate on October 31, 2017. While serving on the federal bench, she is a professor of law at [[Notre Dame Law School]], where she has taught civil procedure, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation.<ref>Wolf, Richard. [https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/notre-dames-amy-coney-barrett-likely-a-front-runner-for-supreme-court-vacancy/article_25251440-fa16-11ea-be53-d721bab76758.html Notre Dame's Amy Coney Barrett likely a front-runner for Supreme Court vacancy], ''[[South Bend Tribune]]'', September 19, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.</ref><ref name="FJC Bio" /><ref>{{Cite news|last=Lloyd|first=Alice B.|date=July 6, 2018|title=Former Law Students Praise Amy Coney Barrett|language=en|work=[[The Weekly Standard]]|url=https://www.weeklystandard.com/alice-b-lloyd/female-scotus-candidate-amy-coney-barrett-praised-by-her-law-school-students|access-date=July 9, 2018|quote=Students, being familiar with her scholarship and lectures, knew her to be a consistent textualist and originalist.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine|last=Simon|first=Abigail|date=July 3, 2018|title=These Are Trump's Candidates for the Supreme Court|url=http://time.com/5329654/donald-trump-supreme-court-nominees/|access-date=July 9, 2018|magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]]|language=en|quote=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.}}</ref> Shortly after her confirmation to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, Barrett was added to Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees.<ref>{{Cite web|title=President Donald J. Trump's Supreme Court List|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/|access-date=2020-08-19|website=The White House|language=en-US}}</ref> == Early life and education == Barrett was born Amy Vivian Coney on January 28, 1972, in [[New Orleans]]. She is the eldest of seven children, with five sisters and a brother. Her father, Michael Coney, worked as an attorney for [[Shell Oil Company]], and her mother, Linda, was a homemaker. Barrett grew up in [[Metairie, Louisiana|Metairie]] suburb of New Orleans, and graduated from [[St. Mary's Dominican High School]] in 1990, where she was vice president of the student body.<ref name="highschool">Aymond, Gregory M (September 19, 2017).[https://clarionherald.org/2017/09/19/senate-violated-constitutions-ban-on-religious-tests/ Senate Violated A Constitution Ban] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190426201229/https://clarionherald.org/2017/09/19/senate-violated-constitutions-ban-on-religious-tests/ |date=April 26, 2019 }}, ''Clarion Herald''</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Stole |first1=Bryn |title=Amy Coney Barrett: Mother of 7, Metairie native, solid conservative ... next Supreme Court justice? |url=https://www.nola.com/article_d71cb604-ae33-5892-8848-04d2113bd7a6.html |website=NOLA.com |language=en |date=6 July 2018}}</ref> Barrett studied [[English literature]] at [[Rhodes College]], graduating in 1994 with a [[Bachelor of Arts]] ''[[Latin honors#North America|magna cum laude]]'' and [[Phi Beta Kappa]] membership.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/|title=Potential nominee profile: Amy Coney Barrett |date=July 4, 2018|work=SCOTUSblog|access-date=July 7, 2018|language=en-US}}</ref> She then studied law at the [[Notre Dame Law School]] on a full tuition scholarship. She served as an executive editor of the ''[[Notre Dame Law Review]]'' and graduated first in her class in 1997 with a [[Juris Doctor]] ''summa cum laude''.<ref name=":3">{{cite web|url=http://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett|title=Amy Coney Barrett bio|publisher=University of Notre Dame School of Law|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120902002517/http://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/|archive-date=September 2, 2012|url-status=live|access-date=May 8, 2017}}</ref> == Career == === Clerkships and private practice === After graduating from law school, Barrett served as a [[law clerk]] to Judge [[Laurence Silberman]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]].<ref name="ALJreport">{{cite news|title=Nominee Report|publisher=[[Alliance for Justice]]|url=https://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Barrett-Report.pdf|accessdate=9 July 2018}}</ref> She then spent a year as a clerk to Associate Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] of the [[Supreme Court of the United States]].<ref name="ALJreport" /> During both clerkships, she was the only female law clerk. From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in [[Washington, D.C.|Washington, D.C]].<ref>{{cite news|last=Lat|first=David|authorlink=David Lat|date=May 1, 2017|title=Circuit Court Nominees in the Trump Administration: A Nationwide Round-Up|work=[[Above the Law (website)|Above the Law]]|url=https://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/circuit-court-nominees-in-the-trump-administration-a-nationwide-round-up/2|url-status=live|access-date=September 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170506134148/http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/circuit-court-nominees-in-the-trump-administration-a-nationwide-round-up/2/|archive-date=May 6, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Carr|first=Thomas B.|date=July 26, 2004|title=Letters to the Editor: 'Now-Defunct' Miller, Cassidy|work=[[National Law Journal]]|url=http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=900005412049/Letters-to-the-Editor-NowDefunct-Miller-Cassidy|url-status=dead|access-date=September 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170930085645/http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=900005412049/Letters-to-the-Editor-NowDefunct-Miller-Cassidy|archive-date=September 30, 2017|df=mdy-all}}{{subscription required}}</ref> === Teaching and scholarship === Barrett served as a visiting associate professor and John M. Olin Fellow in Law at the [[George Washington University Law School]] for a year before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame Law School.<ref name="bio" /> In 2002, Barrett returned to Notre Dame Law School to teach federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. Barrett was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and from 2014 to 2017 held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.<ref name="WSJ-1" /> Her scholarship focuses on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, and ''stare decisis''.<ref name=":3" /> Her academic work has been published in journals such as the [[Columbia Law Review|Columbia]], [[Cornell Law Review|Cornell]], [[Virginia Law Review|Virginia]], [[Notre Dame Law Review|Notre Dame]], and [[Texas Law Review|Texas]] law reviews.<ref name="bio">{{Cite web|last=|first=|title=Hon. Amy Coney Barrett|url=https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/|access-date=2020-08-19|publisher=University of Notre Dame|language=en}}</ref> Some of her most significant publications are ''Suspension and Delegation'', 99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014),<ref name=":7" /> ''Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement'', 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2013),<ref name=":8" /> ''The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court'', 106 Colum. L. Rev. 101 (2006),<ref name=":9" /> and ''Stare Decisis and Due Process'', 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).<ref name=":10" /> At Notre Dame, Barrett received the "Distinguished Professor of the Year" award three times.<ref name=bio/> She taught Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Federal Courts, Constitutional Theory Seminar, and Statutory Interpretation Seminar.<ref name=bio/> Barrett has continued to teach seminars as a sitting judge.<ref>{{cite news |last=Severino |first=Carrie |authorlink=Carrie Severino |title=Bench Memos: Who Is Amy Coney Barrett? |work=[[National Review]] |date=May 7, 2017 |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/447404/who-amy-coney-barrett |access-date=May 8, 2017 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20171007144423/http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/447404/who-amy-coney-barrett |archive-date=October 7, 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> While a full-time faculty member at Notre Dame, Barrett was affiliated with Faculty for Life, a pro-life group at the school. In 2015, she signed a joint letter to Catholic bishops that affirmed the Church's teachings, including "the value of human life from conception to natural death", and that family and marriage are "founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman".<ref>{{Cite news|title=Supreme Court opening: Indiana's Amy Coney Barrett a favorite of grassroots conservatives|language=en|work=Indianapolis Star|url=https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/08/amy-coney-barrett-favorite-social-conservatives-supreme-court-trump-nominee/763191002/|access-date=2018-07-09}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=Letter to Synod Fathers from Catholic Women|language=en-US|work=Ethics & Public Policy Center|url=https://eppc.org/synodletter/|access-date=2018-07-09}}</ref> === Federal judicial service === ==== Nomination and confirmation ==== President [[Donald Trump]] nominated Barrett on May 8, 2017, to serve as a [[United States Circuit Judge]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]], to the seat vacated by Judge [[John Daniel Tinder]], who took [[senior status]] on February 18, 2015.<ref>{{cite web |title=Presidential Nomination 369, 115th United States Congress |date=May 8, 2017 |url=https://www.congress.gov/nomination/115th-congress/369 |publisher=[[United States Congress]] |accessdate=June 30, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |author=Staff |title=Trump Names 10 Conservatives It Plans to Nominate to Federal Courts |date=May 8, 2017 |work=[[Chicago Tribune]] |url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-judges-federal-courts-20170508-story.html |access-date=September 29, 2017}}</ref> [[File:20180223 185543 NDD 5533.jpg|thumb|Judge [[Laurence Silberman]], swearing in Judge Barrett at her investiture |alt=|381x381px]] A hearing on Barrett's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.<ref>{{cite web |title=Rescheduled Notice of Committee Hearing |date=August 4, 2017 |website=Senate Judiciary Committee |url=https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/08/08/2017/nominations |access-date=October 7, 2017}}</ref> During Barrett's hearing, Democratic Senator [[Dianne Feinstein]] questioned Barrett about whether her [[Catholic Church|Catholic faith]] would influence her decision-making on the court, because in 1998 Barrett wrote an article in which she argued that Catholic judges should in some cases recuse themselves from death penalty cases due to their moral objections to the death penalty.<ref>{{Cite news|title=How Amy Coney Barrett vaulted onto Trump's Supreme Court shortlist|language=en|work=Politico|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/02/justice-barrett-amy-coney-feinstein-692199|access-date=2018-07-03}}</ref> 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."<ref name=DeSanctis>[https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dianne-feinstein-amy-coney-barrett-senator-attacks-catholic-judicial-nominee/ Dianne Feinstein Attacks Judicial Nominee’s Catholic Faith], [[National Review]], Alexandra DeSanctis, September 6, 2017. Retrieved September 9, 2018.</ref><ref name=":6">{{cite news |last1=Green |first1=Emma |title=Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/09/catholics-senate-amy-barrett/539124/ |accessdate=July 1, 2018 |publisher=The Atlantic |date=September 8, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Goodstein (2017)">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html|title=Some Worry About Judicial Nominee's Ties to a Religious Group|last=Goodstein|first=Laurie|date=September 28, 2017|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=July 4, 2018|archive-url=https://archive.is/20170928142021/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html|archive-date=September 28, 2017|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Feinstein: 'The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern' |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/feinstein-the-dogma-lives-loudly-within-you-and-thats-a-concern/2017/09/07/04303fda-93cb-11e7-8482-8dc9a7af29f9_video.html |accessdate=June 30, 2018 |work=The Washington Post |date=September 7, 2017}}</ref> In response to Feinstein's remark, the conservative [[Judicial Crisis Network]] began to sell mugs with Barrett's photo and the Feinstein "dogma" quote.<ref name="Star">{{Cite news|title=Donnelly one of few Democrats to back potential Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett|language=en|work=[[Indianapolis Star]]|url=https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/31/donnelly-one-few-democrats-back-notre-dame-professor-federal-court/817992001/|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> Democratic Senator [[Dick Durbin]] asked Barrett whether she was an "orthodox Catholic" and criticized her prior use of the term, saying it "unfairly maligns Catholics who do not hold certain positions about abortion or the death penalty."<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|first=Alexandra|last=Desanctis|url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/09/dick-durbin-dianne-feinstein-senators-grill-judicial-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-religion-catholic/|title=Did Durbin and Feinstein Impose a Religious Test for Office?|date=September 8, 2017|work=[[National Review]]|access-date=July 7, 2018|language=en-US}}</ref> Feinstein's and Durbin's line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts as engaging in "religious bigotry" and employing an unconstitutional "religious test" for office.<ref name=gerstein>{{cite news |last1=Gerstein |first1=Josh |title=Senators take fire over questions for Catholic judicial nominee |url=https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/09/11/amy-barrett-judicial-nominee-religion-242550 |accessdate=June 30, 2018 |website=[[Politico]] |date=September 11, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Eisgruber letter">{{cite web |last=Eisgruber |first=Christopher L. |authorlink=Christopher Eisgruber |title=Letter from President Eisgruber to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Regarding the Use of Religious Tests |date=September 8, 2017 |website=Princeton University: Office of the President |url=http://www.princeton.edu/president/eisgruber/speeches-writings/archive/?id=18090 |access-date=October 7, 2017 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20171007145753/http://www.princeton.edu/president/eisgruber/speeches-writings/archive/?id=18090 |archive-date=October 7, 2017 |url-status=live}}</ref> They were defended by others.<ref name=":2">{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-aron-feinstein-barrett-faith-and-law-hearing-20170915-story.html |title=Forget the critics, Feinstein did the right thing by questioning a judicial nominee on her faith and the law |last=Aron |first=Nan |authorlink=Nan Aron |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=September 15, 2017|access-date=June 30, 2018}}</ref> The issue prompted questions about the application of [[No Religious Test Clause|Article VI, Section 3]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]], which reads: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."<ref name=":1" /><ref name="gerstein" /><ref name="Eisgruber letter" /><ref name=":2" /> During her hearing, Barrett said, "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."<ref name=gerstein /> Throughout the hearing, Feinstein and Durbin referred to a law review article she co-wrote with Professor [[John H. Garvey]] as a law student. According to Barrett, that "article addressed a very narrow question" of how a "conscientious objector to the death penalty who was a trial judge would proceed if the law required that judge to enter an order of execution." The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. At the hearing, several Democratic senators pointed to that article to argue that Barrett would be willing to put her faith above her judicial duties. Barrett defended herself by noting that she had participated in many death-penalty appeals while serving as law clerk to Scalia. She also said, "My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Judicial and Justice Department Pending Nominations {{!}} C-SPAN.org|url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?433501-1/amy-coney-barrett-testifies-seventh-circuit-confirmation-hearing-2017|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.c-span.org|language=en-us}}</ref> Several Republican senators came to Barrett's defense,<ref>{{Cite web|title=Senator Lankford on Judicial Nominee Amy Barrett {{!}} C-SPAN.org|url=https://www.c-span.org/video/?436559-5/senator-lankford-discusses-amy-barrett-nomination|access-date=2020-09-13|website=www.c-span.org|language=en-us}}</ref> including [[Chuck Grassley]], who said, "Professor Barrett is a brilliant legal scholar who has earned the respect of colleagues and students from across the political spectrum. She's also a committed Roman Catholic and has spoken passionately about the role that her faith plays in her life. This isn't inconsistent with being a federal judge."<ref>{{Cite news|date=October 31, 2017|first=Ryan|last=Lovelace|title=Senate votes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals|url=https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate-votes-to-confirm-amy-coney-barrett-to-7th-circuit-court-of-appeals|access-date=March 14, 2019|newspaper=[[Washington Examiner]]|language=en}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |last=Freking |first=Kevin |title=Committee Recommends Notre Dame Professor Amy Coney Barrett for U.S. Judicial Bench |date=October 6, 2017 |work=[[South Bend Tribune]] |agency=[[Associated Press]] |url=https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/committee-recommends-notre-dame-professor-amy-coney-barrett-for-u/article_51bbb172-fb10-5f92-8a0b-eafe1e1371d1.html |access-date=October 7, 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings, Committee on the Judiciary |journal=Congressional Record, 115th Congress, 1st Session |date=October 5, 2017 |volume=163 |issue=160 |pages=D1059–D1060 |url=https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/10/5/daily-digest/article/d1059-1 |access-date=October 7, 2017}}</ref> On October 30, the Senate invoked [[cloture]] by a vote of 54–42.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00254 |title=U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress – 1st Session |website=www.senate.gov |accessdate=May 8, 2018}}</ref> The Senate confirmed her by a vote of 55–43 on October 31, with three Democrats—[[Joe Donnelly]], [[Tim Kaine]], and [[Joe Manchin]]—voting for her.<ref name=":0" /> She received her commission on November&nbsp;2.<ref name="FJC Bio" /> Barrett is the first and to date only woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit.<ref>https://vettingroom.org/2017/06/06/professor-amy-coney-barrett-nominee-to-the-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-seventh-circuit/</ref> === Notable cases === ==== Title IX ==== In ''Doe v. Purdue University'', 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 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. 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 he was deprived of his occupational liberty without due process and that he had possibly been discriminated against on the basis of sex, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Doe v. Purdue University, No. 17-3565 (7th Cir. 2019)|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/17-3565/17-3565-2019-06-28.html|access-date=2019-07-08|website=Justia Law|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|author=ALEXANDRA WELIEVER AND JACKIE LE Staff|title=Appeals court reverses dismissal of sex-assault lawsuit|url=https://www.purdueexponent.org/article_77c83b90-9c3f-11e9-821e-2f800e69dbb4.html|access-date=2019-07-08|website=Purdue Exponent|language=en}}</ref> <ref>{{Cite web|title=7th Circuit reinstates student case against Purdue in sexual assault case|url=https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/50742-th-circuit-reinstates-student-case-against-purdue-in-sexual-assault-case|access-date=2019-07-08|website=www.theindianalawyer.com|language=en}}</ref> ==== Immigration ==== In ''Cook County v. Wolf'' (7th Cir. 2020), Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent, disagreeing with the majority's decision to uphold a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration’s controversial "[[public charge rule]]" which heightened the standard for obtaining a [[green card]], creating a wealth test, and has been heavily criticized as causing immigrants to disenroll from government benefits. In her dissent, Barrett argued that disenrollment was caused by confusion surrounding the rule, rather than the rule itself, 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, then-Chief Judge [[Diane Wood]] and Judge [[Ilana Rovner]], who held that DHS’s interpretation of that provision was unreasonable under ''[[Chevron deference|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]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=Cook County v. Wolf, No. 19-3169 (7th Cir. 2020)|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-3169/19-3169-2020-06-10.html|access-date=2020-08-05|website=Justia Law|language=en}}</ref> The public charge issue is the subject of a [[circuit split]].<ref>[https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2020/08/05/splitting-with-other-circuits-appeals-court-rules-for-trump-in-public-charge-case/]</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=|title=Casa De Maryland v. Trump|url=https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/public-charge-ca4.pdf|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=|website=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Cook County v. Wolf, No. 19-3169 (7th Cir. 2020)|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/19-3169/19-3169-2020-06-10.html|access-date=2020-08-04|website=Justia Law|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Trump administration can enforce green card wealth test in most states, court rules|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/immigration-news-trump-administration-public-charge-rule-green-card-wealth-test/|access-date=2020-08-19|website=www.cbsnews.com|language=en-US}}</ref> In ''Yafai v. Pompeo'', 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019), the court considered a case brought by a Yemeni citizen, Ahmad, and her husband, a U.S. citizen, who challenged a consular officer's decision to twice deny Ahmad's visa application under the [[Immigration and Nationality Act]]. Yafai, the U.S. citizen, argued that the denial of his wife's visa application denied constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse.<ref name=Yafai>''[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15772380189014050847 Yafai v. Pompeo]'', 912 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2019), [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4356881763351624987 en banc rev. denied], 924 F.3d 969 ((7th Cir. 2019) (per curiam).</ref> In an 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 Ahmad’s visa application was facially legitimate and bona fide. Following the panel's decision, Yafai filed a petition for rehearing ''[[en banc]]''; the petition was denied, with Chief Judge Wood, joined by Judges Rovner and [[David Hamilton (judge)|David Hamilton]], dissenting from the denial of rehearing, and Barrett and Judge [[Joel Flaum]] writing rare opinions concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc.<ref name=Yafai/><ref>{{Cite web|title=Dissent Slams 7th Circ.'s Rehearing Denial For Yemeni Couple – Law360|url=https://www.law360.com/articles/1162851/dissent-slams-7th-circ-s-rehearing-denial-for-yemeni-couple|access-date=2020-08-04|website=www.law360.com|language=en}}</ref> ==== Second Amendment ==== In ''Kanter v. Barr'', 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), Barrett dissented from the court's holding upholding the law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms. The plaintiffs had been convicted of [[mail fraud]]. The majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as "substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence." In a lengthy 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 non-violent felons promotes this interest, and argued that the law violated the Second Amendment.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1478/18-1478-2019-03-15.html|title=Kanter v. Barr, No. 18-1478 (7th Cir. 2019)|website=Justia Law|language=en|access-date=2019-05-19}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/05/18/if-donald-trump-gets-another-supreme-court-pick|title=If Donald Trump gets another Supreme Court pick...|date=2019-05-16|work=The Economist|access-date=2019-05-19|issn=0013-0613}}</ref> ==== Fourth Amendment ==== In ''Rainsberger v. Benner'', 913 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2019), the panel, in an opinion by Barrett, affirmed the district court's ruling denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment and qualified immunity in a [[42 U.S.C. § 1983]] case. The defendant, Benner, was a police detective who knowingly provided false and misleading information in an [[probable cause]] affidavit that was used to obtain an [[arrest warrant]] against Rainsberger. (The charges were later dropped and Rainsberger was released.) The court found the defendant's lies and omissions violated "clearly established law" and thus the detective was not shielded by qualified immunity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/49192-impd-detective-must-stand-trial-on-false-affidavit-in-murder|title=IMPD detective must stand trial on false affidavit in murder|website=www.theindianalawyer.com|language=en|access-date=2019-03-14}}</ref> The case ''United States v. Watson'', 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018) involved police responding to an anonymous tip that people were "playing with guns" in a parking lot. The police arrived and searched the defendant's vehicle, taking possession of two firearms, and the defendant was later charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court denied the defendant's [[motion to suppress]]. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit, in a decision by Barrett, vacated and remanded, determining that the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle based solely upon the tip, where no crime was actually alleged. Writing for the majority, 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."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/47896-th-circuit-says-vacated-fourth-amendment-case-was-a-close-call|title=7th Circuit says vacated Fourth Amendment case was 'close call'|website=www.theindianalawyer.com|language=en|access-date=2019-03-14}}</ref> ==== Civil procedure and standing==== In ''Casillas v. Madison Ave. Associates, Inc''., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019), the plaintiff brought a [[Class action|class-action]] lawsuit against Madison Avenue, alleging that the company violated the [[Fair Debt Collection Practices Act]] (FDCPA) when it sent her a debt-collection letter that described the FDCPA process for verifying a debt but failed to specify in the letter that she was required to respond in writing to trigger the FDCPA protections. Casillas did not allege that she had tried to verify her debt and trigger the statutory protections under the FDCPA, or that the amount owed was in any doubt. In a decision written by Barrett, the panel, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in ''[[Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins]]'', found that the plaintiff's allegation of receiving incorrect or incomplete information was only a "bare procedural violation" that was insufficiently concrete to satisfy the [[Article III of the United States Constitution|Article III]]'s [[injury-in-fact]] requirement. Then-Chief Judge Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The issue created a [[circuit split]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Stancombe|first=Katie|title=7th Circuit debt collection ruling creates split among circuits|url=https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/50498-th-circuit-debt-collection-ruling-creates-split-among-circuits|access-date=2020-08-04|website=The Indiana Lawyer|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-07-29|title=Seventh Circuit's "No Harm, No Foul" Holding Requires Concrete Harm in Consumer Lending Cases|url=https://www.consumerfinancelegalreport.com/2019/07/seventh-circuits-no-harm-no-foul-holding-requires-concrete-harm-in-consumer-lending-cases/|access-date=2020-08-04|website=Consumer Finance Legal Report|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|date=2019-06-05|title=7th Circuit rejects lawsuit over collection letter, says no harm shown|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-debt-appeal-idUSL2N23C1OT|access-date=2020-08-04}}</ref> == Judicial philosophy == Barrett considers herself an [[Originalism|originalist]]. She is a constitutional scholar with expertise in statutory interpretation.<ref name=":0" /> Reuters described Barrett as a "a favorite among religious conservatives," and noted that she has voted in favor of expanded gun rights and the Trump administration's anti-immigration policies.<ref name=":42">{{Cite news|last=Wolfe|first=Jan|date=2020-09-20|title=Notable opinions of U.S. Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-barrett-rulings-factbox-idUSKCN26B0XG|access-date=2020-09-20}}</ref> Barrett was law clerk to Justice [[Antonin Scalia]]. She has spoken and written of her admiration of his close attention to the text of statutes. She has also praised his adherence to originalism.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Kendall |first1=Brent |title=Amy Coney Barrett Is Again a Top Contender for Supreme Court Nomination |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/amy-coney-barrett-is-again-a-top-contender-for-supreme-court-nomination-11600644990 |website=WSJ |publisher=Wall Street Journal |accessdate=21 September 2020}}</ref> In 2013, Barrett wrote a Texas Law Review article on the doctrine of [[stare decisis|''stare decisis'']] wherein she listed seven cases that should be considered "Superprecedents," or cases that the court would never consider overturning. The list, included [[Brown vs. Board of Education]] but specifically excluded [[Roe vs. Wade]]. In explaining why the later was not included, Barrett referenced scholarship agreeing that in order to qualify as Superprecedent, a case must enjoy widespread support from not only jurists but politicians and the public at large to an extent they've become immune from reversal or challenge. Barrett argued the people must trust the validity of a ruling to such an extent 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|Planned Parenthood vs. Casey]] as specific evidence ''Roe'' had not yet obtained this status.<ref>Barrett, Amy C. "Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement" Published Last Updated August 22, 2013 http://texaslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Barrett.pdf , Texas Law Review Vol 91, No 7, page 1711, 1734-35</ref> Barrett has never ruled directly on a case pertaining to abortion rights but she did vote to rehear a successful challenge to Indiana's parental notification law in 2019. In 2018, Barrett voted against striking down another Indiana law requiring burial or cremation of fetal remains. In both cases Barrett voted with the minority however the Supreme Court later reinstated the fetal remains law and recently ordered a rehearing in the parental notification case.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news|last=Wolfe|first=Jan|date=2020-09-20|title=Notable opinions of U.S. Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-barrett-rulings-factbox-idUSKCN26B0XG|access-date=2020-09-20}}</ref> At a 2013 event reflecting on the 40th anniversary of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', she described the decision—in ''Notre Dame Magazine''<nowiki/>'s paraphrase—as "creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-possible-supreme-court-nominee-has-backed-flexible-approach-to-court-precedent/2018/07/05/e8b63b7c-7f1c-11e8-b9f0-61b08cdd0ea1_story.html|title=Amy Coney Barrett, possible Supreme Court nominee, has backed 'flexible' approach to court precedent|website=The Washington Post|language=en|access-date=2018-07-09}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://magazine.nd.edu/news/lazy-i-students-faculty-mark-40-years-of-roe/|title=Students, faculty mark 40 years of Roe // News // Notre Dame Magazine // University of Notre Dame|last=|first=|date=|website=magazine.nd.edu|access-date=July 9, 2018}}</ref> She also remarked that it was "very unlikely" the court would overturn the core of ''Roe v. Wade'': "The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It's a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://ndsmcobserver.com/2013/01/law-professor-reflects-on-landmark-case/|title=Law professor reflects on landmark case // The Observer|date=January 21, 2013|work=The Observer|access-date=July 9, 2018|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Groppe |first1=Maureen |title=What Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett has said about abortion and 9 other issues |url=https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/08/amy-coney-barrett-what-possible-supreme-court-nominee-has-said-roe-v-wade-and-other-issues/759076002/ |accessdate=9 July 2018 |newspaper=[[The Indianapolis Star]] |date=8 July 2018}}</ref> == Potential Supreme Court nomination == Barrett has been on President [[Donald Trump]]'s list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017, almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation. In July 2018, after [[Anthony Kennedy]]'s retirement announcement, she was reportedly one of three finalists—and the only woman—Trump considered as Kennedy's successor.<ref name="WSJ-1">{{Cite news |last1=Nicholas |first1=Peter |last2=Radnofsky |first2=Louise |title=Trump Winnows Down Supreme Court Picks, Focusing on Three |date=July 5, 2018 |newspaper=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-weighs-personal-chemistry-legal-record-in-picking-supreme-court-nominee-1530702001?wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1 |url-access=subscription |access-date=July 5, 2018}}</ref><ref name="Indianapolis Star">{{cite news |title=Indiana's Amy Coney Barrett on list of 25 likely Supreme Court candidates |date=June 28, 2018 |newspaper=[[Indianapolis Star]] |url=https://eu.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/28/supreme-court-nominee-25-likely-candidates-president-trump/741169002/ |access-date=June 29, 2018}}</ref> Trump chose [[Brett Kavanaugh]].<ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court], ''[[The New York Times]]'', Mark Landler and Maggie Haberman, July 9, 2018. Retrieved September 25, 2018.</ref> Reportedly, although Trump liked Barrett, he was concerned about her lack of experience on the bench.<ref>https://www.npr.org/2018/07/06/626118139/trumps-top-two-supreme-court-picks-reflect-warring-republican-factions</ref> At the time, Barrett had been on the bench for less than a year. After Kavanaugh's selection, Barrett was expected to "stay in the spotlight" as a possible nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy.<ref name="chicago.suntimes.com">[https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/chicago-judge-amy-coney-barrett-passed-over-for-supreme-court-will-stay-in-spotlight/ Judge Amy Coney Barrett passed over for Supreme Court will stay in spotlight], ''[[Sun Times]]'', Jon Seidel and Lynn Sweet, July 18, 2018. Retrieved September 25, 2018.</ref> Trump was reportedly "saving" [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]'s seat for Barrett if Ginsburg retired or died during Trump's presidency.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-saving-ruth-bader-ginsburg-seat-for-amy-barrett-2019-4|title=Trump is reportedly 'saving' a seat on the Supreme Court for conservative Amy Barrett in place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg|last=Perper|first=Rosie|website=Business Insider|access-date=2019-07-08}}</ref> Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, and Barrett was widely mentioned as the front-runner to succeed her.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Amy Coney Barrett emerging as a front-runner to fill Ginsburg's Supreme Court seat|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/amy-coney-barrett-emerging-front-runner-fill-ginsburg-s-supreme-n1240547|access-date=2020-09-19|website=NBC News|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Sources: Trump Considers Coney Barrett, Lagoa, Thapar For Supreme Court Spot|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/19/914829456/sources-trump-considers-coney-barrett-lagoa-thapar-for-supreme-court-spot|access-date=2020-09-19|website=NPR.org|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last1=Ting|first1=Eric|last2=SFGATE|date=2020-09-19|title=Revisiting reported SCOTUS frontrunner Amy Coney Barrett's battle with Dianne Feinstein|url=https://www.sfgate.com/elections/article/Amy-Coney-Barrett-Supreme-Court-Ginsburg-Feinstein-15580435.php|access-date=2020-09-19|website=SFGate|language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Wingrove |first1=Josh |last2=Yaffe-Bellany |first2=David |last3=Jacobs |first3=Jennifer |date=September 18, 2020 |title=Barrett Has Supreme Court Edge as List Widens to Lagoa, Thapar |work=Bloomberg News |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-19/amy-coney-barrett-emerges-as-frontrunner-for-trump-court-pick |url-status=live |access-date=2020-09-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200920153913/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-19/amy-coney-barrett-emerges-as-frontrunner-for-trump-court-pick |archive-date=2020-09-20}}</ref> == Personal life == [[File:20180223 173304 NDD 5276.jpg|thumb|Judge Barrett with her husband, Jesse|308x308px]] Barrett is married to Jesse M. Barrett, a partner at SouthBank Legal in South Bend, Indiana, and former [[Assistant United States Attorney|Assistant U.S. Attorney]] for the [[United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana|Northern District of Indiana]].<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Class Notes: Class of 1996 |magazine=Notre Dame Magazine |date=Winter 2012–2013 |url=http://magazine.nd.edu/archives/2012/winter-2012-13/class-notes/1990s |access-date=May 8, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130329071001/http://magazine.nd.edu/archives/2012/winter-2012-13/class-notes/1990s/ |archive-date=March 29, 2013 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=SouthBank Legal|url=https://southbank.legal/team/jesse-barrett|access-date=2020-08-08|website=southbank.legal|language=en}}</ref> They live in South Bend and have seven children: five biological children and two children adopted from [[Haiti]]. Their youngest biological child has special needs.<ref name="FJC Bio" /><ref>{{cite news |title=Senate Violated A Constitution Ban |url=https://clarionherald.org/2017/09/19/senate-violated-constitutions-ban-on-religious-tests |accessdate=July 3, 2018 |publisher=Clarion Herald |date=September 19, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180630024748/https://clarionherald.org/2017/09/19/senate-violated-constitutions-ban-on-religious-tests/ |archive-date=June 30, 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Desmond |first1=Joan |title=Will This Catholic Jurist Be the Newest Supreme Court Justice? |url=http://www.ncregister.com/blog/joan-desmond/will-this-catholic-mom-of-7-be-the-newest-supreme-court-justice |accessdate=July 3, 2018 |publisher=National Catholic Register |date=July 2, 2018}}</ref> Barrett is a practicing [[Roman Catholic]].<ref>app://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/07/18/why-do-catholics-make-majority-supreme-court</ref> In September 2017, ''[[The New York Times]]'' reported that Barrett was an active member of a small, tightly knit [[Charismatic movement|Charismatic]] Christian group called [[People of Praise]].<ref name="goodstein">{{Cite news|last=Goodstein|first=Laurie|date=2017-09-28|title=Some Worry About Judicial Nominee's Ties to a Religious Group|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/us/amy-coney-barrett-nominee-religion.html|access-date=2020-09-19}}</ref><ref name=Parrott>Jeff Parrott, [https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/supreme-court-opening-shines-spotlight-on-local-religious-group-people-of-praise/article_569b0dd6-145a-59df-9bf7-2280009fd582.html Supreme Court opening shines spotlight on local religious group People of Praise], ''South Bend Tribune'' (July 15, 2018).</ref> Founded in South Bend, the group is associated with the [[Catholic Charismatic Renewal]] movement; it is [[ecumenical]], but about 90% Catholic.<ref name=Parrott/><ref name=Thorp>Adam Thorp, [https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/7/5/18397454/6-things-to-know-about-people-of-praise-and-judge-amy-coney-barrett 6 things to know about 'People of Praise' and Judge Amy Coney Barrett] (July 5, 2018).</ref> Full members are asked to make a "covenant" to the community,<ref name="goodstein" /><ref name=Parrott/> variously described as a lifelong loyalty oath to each other,<ref name="goodstein" /> or a lifelong commitment to the group.<ref name=Parrott/> Members are assigned a personal advisor who gives direction on important personal decisions;<ref name="goodstein" /> the advisor is called a "head" for men<ref name="goodstein" /><ref name=Parrott/> and "woman leader" for women.<ref name="goodstein" /><ref name=Thorp/> == Affiliations and recognition == From 2010 to 2016, Barrett served by appointment of the Chief Justice on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.<ref name=bio/> Barrett was a member of the [[Federalist Society]] from 2005 to 2006, and again from 2014 to 2017.<ref name="Goodstein (2017)" /><ref name=":0" /> Barrett was invited to be a member of the [[American Law Institute]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Institute|first=The American Law|title=Members|url=https://www.ali.org/members/member/453624/|access-date=2020-08-05|website=American Law Institute|language=en}}</ref> == Selected publications == * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Originalism and Stare Decisis'', 92 Notre Dame L. Rev 1921 (2017).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2017|title=Originalism and Stare Decisis|url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr|journal=[[Notre Dame Law Review]]|volume=92|pages=1921–1944}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett & John Copeland Nagle, ''Congressional Originalism'', 19 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1 (2016).<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Barrett|first1=Amy Coney|last2=Nagle|first2=John Copeland|date=2016|title=Congressional Originalism|url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jcl/vol19/iss1/1/|journal=[[University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law]]|volume=19|pages=1–44}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty'', 32 Const. Comment. 61 (2017) (Book review for a symposium on''Our Republican Constitution'').<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2017|title=Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty [review]|url=https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/4/|journal=Constitutional Commentary|volume=32|pages=61–84}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Suspension and Delegation'', 99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014).<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2014|title=Suspension and Delegation|url=http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol99/iss2/1|journal=[[Cornell Law Review]]|volume=99|pages=251–326}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement'', 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2013).<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2013|title=Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement|url=http://texaslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Barrett.pdf|journal=[[Texas Law Review]]|volume=91|pages=1711–1737}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency'', 90 B.U. L. Rev. 109 (2010).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2010|title=Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency|url=https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/barrett.pdf|journal=B.U. L. Rev.|volume=|pages=109–182}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Introduction: Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors'', 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1147 (2008).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2008|title=Introduction [Symposium: Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors]|url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol83/iss3/4/|journal=[[Notre Dame Law Review]]|volume=83|pages=1147–1172}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Procedural Common Law'', 94 Virginia L. Rev. 813 (2008).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2008|title=Procedural Common Law|url=https://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/813.pdf|journal=[[Virginia Law Review]]|volume=94|pages=813–888}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court'', 106 Colum. L. Rev. 101 (2006).<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2006|title=The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court|url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/398|journal=[[Columbia Law Review]]|volume=106|pages=324–387}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals'', 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 317 (2005).<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2005|title=Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals|url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/767|journal=[[The George Washington Law Review]]|volume=73|pages=317–352}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett, ''Stare Decisis and Due Process'', 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).<ref name=":10">{{Cite journal|last=Barrett|first=Amy Coney|date=2003|title=Stare Decisis and Due Process|url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/450|journal=U. Colo. L. Rev.|volume=74|pages=1011–1074}}</ref> * Amy Coney Barrett & John H. Garvey, ''Catholic Judges in Capital Cases'', 81 Marq. L. Rev. 303 (1998).<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Barrett|first1=Amy Coney|last2=Garvey|first2=John H.|title=Catholic Judges in Capital Cases|journal=Marquette Law Review|volume=81|page=303|url=https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/527|year=1998}}</ref> == See also == {{Portal|Biography}} * [[List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States]] * [[Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies]] * [[Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates]] == References == {{Reflist}} == External links == {{Wikiquote}} * {{FJC Bio|nid=3979311}} * {{Ballotpedia|Amy_Coney_Barrett|Amy Coney Barrett}} * {{C-SPAN|Amy Barrett}} * {{scopus id}} * [https://works.bepress.com/amy_barrett/ Selected Works of Amy Comey Barrett] by the [[Notre Dame Law School]] * [https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/almID/1202785570154/law-schools-play-prominently-in-trumps-judicial-nominations Law schools play prominently in Trump's judicial nominations], law.com; accessed May 2, 2018. {{registration}} * [https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Barrett%20SJQ(PUBLIC).pdf Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees] for the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary]] * [https://fedsoc.org/contributors/amy-barrett-1 Contributor profile] from the [[Federalist Society]] * [https://law.nd.edu/directory/amy-barrett/ Profile] at Notre Dame Law School {{s-start}} {{s-legal}} {{s-bef|before=[[John Daniel Tinder]]}} {{s-ttl|title={{nowrap|Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]]}}|years=2017–present}} {{s-inc}} {{s-end}} {{United States courts of appeals judges}} {{Authority control}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Coney Barrett, Amy}} [[Category:1972 births]] [[Category:Living people]] [[Category:20th-century American lawyers]] [[Category:21st-century American lawyers]] [[Category:21st-century American judges]] [[Category:American legal scholars]] [[Category:American Roman Catholics]] [[Category:American women judges]] [[Category:Catholics from Louisiana]] [[Category:Catholics from Washington, D.C.]] [[Category:Federalist Society members]] [[Category:Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]] [[Category:Law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States]] [[Category:Lawyers from New Orleans]] [[Category:Lawyers from Washington, D.C.]] [[Category:Notre Dame Law School alumni]] [[Category:Rhodes College alumni]] [[Category:United States constitutional law scholars]] [[Category:United States court of appeals judges appointed by Donald Trump]] [[Category:University of Notre Dame faculty]] [[Category:Women legal scholars]] [[Category:20th-century American women lawyers]] [[Category:21st-century American women lawyers]] [[Category:21st-century women judges]]'