Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett

Nonpartisan

Supreme Court of the United States

Tenure

2020 - Present

Years in position

5

Predecessor: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Nonpartisan)

Prior offices:

United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

Years in office: 2017 - 2020

Predecessor: John Tinder

Education

High school

St. Mary's Dominican High School, 1990

Bachelor's

Rhodes College, 1994

Law

Notre Dame Law School, 1997

Personal

Birthplace

New Orleans, LA

Amy Coney Barrett is an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. President Donald Trump's (R) nominated Barrett to the Court on September 29, 2020, following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death. She was Trump's third nominee to the Court. The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett on October 26, 2020, in 52-48 vote.

Prior to joining the Court, Barrett was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. She was nominated to the court 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. She received commission on November 2, 2017, and left office on October 26, 2020, after her elevation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Barrett graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997, and was the only SCOTUS justice without a Harvard or Yale law degree at the time she was confirmed. 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. 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.” In a 1998 Marquette Law Review article, Barrett disagreed with former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan's view with respect to a Catholic judge deciding and considering abortion cases and capital cases: he said that his oath to the Constitution and upholding U.S. law alone governed his court service, "and... there isn't any obligation of our faith superior to that." Barrett wrote, “We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty. ... Judges cannot—nor should they try to—align our legal system with the Church's moral teaching whenever the two diverge. They should, however, conform their own behavior to the Church's standard. Perhaps their good example will have some effect.”

Barrett clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia in 1998, and cited him as her mentor. She 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.” Scalia's jurisprudence was formed by his conservative positions and his understanding of originalism, a legal philosophy that claims to interpret the intent of a law or constitutional provision based on its meaning at the time of its passage. Of Barrett's jurisprudence, the Congressional Research Service noted that her academic writings "explored... an originalist approach to constitutional interpretation tempered by pragmatic considerations and a textualist approach to statutory interpretation."

An analysis of the political leanings of all nine justices in 2023 ranked Barrett as the fourth most conservative. Northeastern University Prof. Dan Urman said that Barrett was a more moderate conservative and said she was a "potential swing vote, even more than Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kavanaugh."

While on the U.S. Supreme Court, Barrett's notable opinions have included:

• a 5-4 ruling in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn (2025), in which the Court held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) allows plaintiffs to recover damages to business or property from personal injury.
• a 5-4 ruling in Patel v. Garland (2022), in which the Court held that federal courts' jurisdiction does not include a factual review as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary-relief in immigration cases.
• joined the 6-3 majority opinion and wrote a concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), overturning the constitutional right to have an abortion.
• joined the 5-4 conservative majority in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022), in a ruling expanding federal and state prosecutorial power on tribal land.
• joined the 6-3 conservative majority in Carson v. Makin (2022), finding Maine violated the Constitution when it excluded private religious schools from a state-funded tuition program.

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 following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett on October 26, 2020, by a vote of 52-48. She received commission the same day.

• To read more about Barrett's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, click here.

Nomination Tracker
Nominee Information
Name: Amy Coney Barrett
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Progress
Confirmed 27 days after nomination.
ANominated: September 29, 2020
AABA Rating: Substantial majority well qualified/Minority qualified
Questionnaire: Questionnaire
AHearing: October 12-15, 2020
QFRs: QFRs (Hover over QFRs to read more)
AReported: October 22, 2020
AConfirmed: October 26, 2020
AVote: 52-48

Confirmation Vote

The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett by a vote of 52-48 on October 26, 2020. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) was the only Republican senator to vote against Barrett's confirmation. No Democratic Senators voted yea to confirm her to the Court. To see a full breakdown of the vote on the official U.S. Senate website, click here. Barrett was 48 years old at the time of her confirmation.

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

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings

See also: Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings and votes

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 her nomination. 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 American Bar Association representatives, former Judge Thomas Griffith, a law school professor, a former student, and a former mentee and employee. Witnesses opposed to Barrett's confirmation included Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of 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

See also: Supreme Court vacancy, 2020

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, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020. The president officially nominated Barrett on September 29. For more information on the process to fill the 2020 Supreme Court vacancy, click here.

Trump offered remarks on the nomination:

“	She is a woman of unparalleled achievement, towering intellect, sterling credentials, and unyielding loyalty to the Constitution. … Amy Coney Barrett 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.	”
—President Donald Trump

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

Remarks in response to nomination

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

“	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.	”
—Amy Coney Barrett

Possible Donald Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court (2017-2018)

2018

See also: Possible nominees to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court

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. Trump ultimately nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill the vacancy.

Views on the administrative state

The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) is a nonprofit public interest law firm that focuses on the administrative state and views it "as an especially serious threat to constitutional freedoms. Their stated mission is as follows:

“

NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.

”

The NCLA published an assessment of potential replacements for Justice Anthony Kennedy based on how each of them approached questions about the administrative state. They concluded that Barrett "has not authored significant judicial opinions or publications directly on administrative law or the various deference doctrines."

At the same time, the NCLA cited Barrett's Cornell Law Review article “Suspension and Delegation,” as "demonstrat[ing] a commitment to the structural constitution and non-delegation." The nondelegation doctrine is a principle of administrative law holding that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers to executive agencies or private entities. The NCLA quoted Barrett's article abstract:

“

A suspension of the writ of habeas corpus empowers the President to indefinitely detain those suspected of endangering the public safety. In other words, it works a temporary suspension of civil liberties. Given the gravity of this power, the Suspension Clause narrowly limits the circumstances in which it may be exercised: the writ may be suspended only in cases of “rebellion or invasion” and when “the public Safety may require it.”Congress alone can suspend the writ; the Executive cannot declare himself authorized to detain in violation of civil rights. Despite the traditional emphasis on the importance of exclusive legislative authority over suspension, the statutes that Congress has enacted are in tension with it. Each of the suspension statutes has delegated broad authority to the President, permitting him in almost every case to decide whether, when, where, and for how long to exercise emergency power. Indeed, if all these prior statutes are constitutional,Congress could today enact a law authorizing the President to suspend the writ in Guantanamo Bay if he decides at some point in the (perhaps distant) future that the constitutional prerequisites are satisfied. Such a broad delegation undermines the structural benefits that allocating the suspension decision to Congress is designed to achieve. This Article explores whether such delegations are constitutionally permissible. It concludes that while the Suspension Clause does not prohibit Congress from giving the President some responsibility for the suspension decision, it does require Congress to decide the most significant constitutional predicates for itself that an invasion or rebellion has occurred and that protecting the public safety may require the exercise of emergency power. Congress made this determination during the Civil War, but it violated the Suspension Clause in every other case by enacting a suspension statute before an invasion or rebellion occurred and, in some instances, before one was even on the horizon.

”

2017

See also: Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia

On November 17, 2017, Barrett was included in a third list of individuals from which President Donald Trump (R) would choose to fill vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court. A White House statement announcing the nominees read:

“

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.

”

According to reporting by POLITICO and the Washington Post, Federalist Society executive vice president Leonard Leo helped Trump compile the nominee lists. Both Leo and the Federalist Society had been instrumental in selecting Neil Gorsuch to succeed Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017. The Federalist Society labels itself as a conservative and libertarian legal nonprofit organization. Four Supreme Court justices were known members of the organization—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts was listed in the Federalist Society's 1997-1998 leadership directory as a member of the Washington, D.C. chapter's steering committee. while Roberts has asserted that he does not remember being a member of the organization, he confirmed that he participated in some of the Federalist Society's activities.

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. She received commission on November 2, 2017, and left office on October 26, 2020, upon her elevation to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Confirmation vote

The U.S. Senate confirmed Barrett on October 31, 2017, on a vote of 55-43. 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
Democratic	3	41	2
Republican	52	0	0
Independent	0	2	0
Total	55	43	2

Senate Judiciary Committee hearing

Barrett had her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 6, 2017. The committee reported Barrett's nomination to the full Senate for a confirmation vote on October 5, 2017.

Nomination

Barrett was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit by President Donald Trump (R) on May 8, 2017. She 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. To read more about ABA ratings, click here.

Biography

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.

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
• 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

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. 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.

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.

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

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

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

Frequency in majority

In the 2023-2024 term, Barrett was in the majority in 92 percent of decisions. She was in the majority more often than six other justices. 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.

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.

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

• SCOTUS 2024 term (Click to expand)
  
  

  Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn (2025)

  See also: Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn

  Justice Coney Barrett authored a 5-4 majority opinion in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, holding that under civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) §1964(c), a plaintiff can seek treble damages for business or property loss even if the loss was from a personal injury. Barrett was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

  “	You can’t replace something with nothing. And aside from its repeated assertions that “injury” means “invasion of a legal right,” Medical Marijuana offers next to nothing about how courts should assess whether the plaintiff has suffered such an invasion. The proof lies in Medical Marijuana’s own hypotheticals. Unable to identify a guiding principle, it lets pure intuition do the work. It asserts that if a mobster assaults a carwash owner and the owner does “business with the mob” as a result, the owner has suffered a “business or property injury.” ... But why? The business or property loss flowed from an assault on the carwash owner. According to Medical Marijuana, the example works because “[f]orcing someone to do business with the mob instead of a cheaper, legitimate competitor is a prototypical business or property injury.” Ibid. It offers nothing, however, to sup- port this ipse dixit. What makes choosing a more expensive business partner a “prototypical” business injury? And why does this rationale not extend to losing your job, as Horn did after consuming Dixie X? Medical Marijuana does not say. ... Medical Marijuana tries valiantly to engineer a rule that yields its preferred outcomes. (Civil RICO should permit suit against Tony Soprano, but not against an ordinary tortfeasor.) But its textual hook—the word “injured”—does not give it enough to go on. When all is said and done, Medical Marijuana is left fighting the most natural interpretation of the text—that “injured” means “harmed”—with no plausible alternative in hand. That is a battle it cannot win.	”
  —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

• SCOTUS 2021 term (Click to expand)

  
  

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

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

  Barrett joined the 6-3 majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, holding that the U.S. Constitution did not provide a right to abortion. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion, joined as well by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority to uphold Mississippi's abortion law, but not to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Alito wrote:

  “	We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category.	”
  —Justice Alito

  
  

  Federal courts' jurisdiction does not include factual review in judgments granting discretionary relief in immigration cases (2022)

  See also: Patel v. Garland

  Barrett authored a 5-4 ruling in Patel v. Garland (2022), in which the Court held that federal courts' jurisdiction does not include a factual review as part of any judgment relating to the granting of discretionary relief in immigration cases.

  “	Congress has sharply circumscribed judicial review of the discretionary-relief process. Title 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(B) provides: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, and except as provided in subparagraph (D), and regardless of whether the judgment, decision, or action is made in removal proceedings, no court shall have jurisdiction to review— “(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title.” This bar has an important qualification: “Nothing in sub- paragraph (B) . . . shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.” §1252(a)(2)(D). Notably, this qualification does not preserve review of questions of fact. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips courts of jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief ” under §1255. The outcome of this case largely turns on the scope of the word “judgment,” an issue on which the parties and amicus have three competing views. Amicus maintains that “judgment” means any authoritative decision. ... Under this broad definition, §1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s prohibition “encompasses any and all decisions relating to the granting or denying” of discretionary relief. ... Factual findings fall within this category, amicus says, so the courts lack jurisdiction to review them. ... Amicus’ interpretation is the only one that fits §1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s text and context. The provision does not restrict itself to certain kinds of decisions. Rather, it prohibits review of any judgment regarding the granting of relief under §1255 and the other enumerated provisions. As this Court has “repeatedly explained,” “ ' “the word ‘any’ has an expansive meaning.” ’ ” ... Here, “any” means that the provision applies to judgments “ ‘of what-ever kind’ ” under §1255, not just discretionary judgments or the last-in-time judgment. ... Similarly, the use of “regarding“ in a legal context generally has a broadening effect, ensuring that the scope of a provision covers not only its subject but also matters relating to that subject.” ... Thus, §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) encompasses not just“the granting of relief ” but also any judgment relating tothe granting of relief. That plainly includes factual findings. ... In contrast to amicus’ straightforward interpretation, both the Government’s and Patel’s arguments read like elaborate efforts to avoid the most natural meaning of the text.	”
  —Justice Barrett

  
  

Seventh Circuit opinions

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit opinions (2020) (Click to expand)

  
  

  Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker (2020)

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

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

  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.

  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."

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit opinions (2019) (Click to expand)

  
  

  Dissent holding that denying gun ownership to those convicted of non-violent felonies promotes government interest (2019)

  In Kanter v. Barr (2019), a case concerning the Second Amendment, 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, "the government has established that the felon dis-possession statutes are substantially related to the important governmental objective of keeping firearms away those convicted of serious crimes." Barrett dissented, holding 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:

  “	[the Second Amendment] confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense and not limited to civic participation. ... At this point, however, neither Wisconsin nor the United States has presented any evidence that Kanter would be dangerous if armed. Instead, as the majority notes, “Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,” and he is “employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond with lower rates of recidivism.” Maj. Op. at 23. Absent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the governments cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms.	”
  —Judge Amy Coney Barrett

  Chicago ordinance banning anti-abortion oral protest, education, or counseling upheld (2019)

  In Price v. City of Chicago (2019), a Chicago ordinance banned anti-abortion sidewalk counselors from approaching within 8 feet of someone, without consent, if they were 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. 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 (2000), 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 certiorari.

  
  

  Male student found guilty of sexual assault may sue school for discrimination on the basis of his sex (2019)

  In Doe v. Purdue University (2019), Barrett authored a unanimous decision reinstating a lawsuit from a student accused of sexual assault against Purdue University. John Doe was a male Purdue University student pursuing a career in the Navy. He participated in the school's ROTC program and received a Navy ROTC scholarship. Doe was found guilty of sexual assault by the university based on the evidence, including text messages in which John Doe appeared to admit to the assault. Consequently, Doe was suspended from school for one year, and he was expelled from the Navy ROTC program, ending his scholarship and his plan to pursue a naval career.

  Doe then sued the school for violating his due process and Title IX rights. Doe alleged the school’s disciplinary process discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process. The court cited the following details as justification for reinstating John Doe's lawsuit: the school’s investigator relied on a statement written on the accuser—Jane Doe's—behalf by the campus victims’ rights office and deemed Jane more credible than John Doe, though she was not interviewed directly. Also, John 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. A magistrate judge dismissed Doe's claims.

  On appeal before the 7th Circuit, 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.” The court held 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 was a woman and did not believe John Doe because he was a man:

  “	Taken together, John’s allegations raise a plausible inference that he was denied an educational benefit on the basis of his sex. To be sure, John may face problems of proof, and the factfinder might not buy the inferences that he’s selling. But his claim should have made it past the pleading stage, so we reverse the magistrate judge’s premature dismissal of it.	”
  —Judge Barrett

  
  

  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. Rather than using the Yusuf v. Vassar (1994) two-pronged test to show erroneous outcome and selective enforcement, and Doe v. Miami University (2018), adding the categories of deliberate indifference and archaic assumptions, Barrett rejected doctrinal tests, holding, “We prefer to ask the questions more directly: do the alleged facts, if true, raise a plausible inference that the university discriminated against John ‘on the basis of sex’?"

About the courts

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronym SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court consists of nine justices: the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices. The justices are nominated by the president and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the United States Senate per Article II of the United States Constitution. As federal judges, the justices serve during "good behavior," which means that justices have tenure for life unless they are removed by impeachment and subsequent conviction.

The Supreme Court is the only court established by the United States Constitution (in Article III); all other federal courts are created by Congress.

The Supreme Court meets in Washington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.

To read opinions published by this court, click here.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals
Judgeships
Posts: 11
Judges: 11
Vacancies: 0
Judges
Chief: Michael B. Brennan
Active judges: Michael B. Brennan, Frank Easterbrook, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, Thomas L. Kirsch II, Joshua Kolar, John Z. Lee, Nancy Maldonado, Doris Pryor, Michael Scudder, Amy St. Eve, Rebecca Taibleson Senior judges: William Bauer, David Hamilton, Daniel Manion, Kenneth Ripple, Ilana Rovner, Diane Sykes, Diane Wood

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is a federal appellate court with appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from all of the circuit courts within its jurisdiction and its rulings may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Appeals are heard in the Everett M. Dirksen Federal Building in downtown Chicago.

Three judges of the Seventh Circuit went on to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Sherman Minton was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1949 by Harry Truman (D), John Paul Stevens was appointed in 1975 by Gerald Ford (R), and Amy Coney Barrett was appointed in 2020 by Donald Trump (R).

To read opinions published by this court, click here.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• United States Supreme Court cases and courts
• Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings and votes
• Supreme Court vacancy, 2020
• Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia
• Possible nominees to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court
• United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

External links

Suggest a link

• Search Google News for this topic

Search Google News for this topic

• Judge Barrett's biography from the Federal Judicial Center
• Profile by Oyez
• Profile from the Supreme Court Historical Society
• SCOTUSblog Profile of potential nominee Barrett
• Supreme Court of the United States website
• United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit website

Footnotes

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