Amy Coney Barrett in Supreme Court 2020s
On Crime:
George Floyd video shows that racism persists
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett have not ruled on affirmative action cases as appellate judges. Barrett has two adopted Black children and during her confirmation hearings, she was asked where, "as an originalist,"
she thought the country was today on race.
She answered: "I think it is an entirely uncontroversial and obvious statement given, as we just talked about, the George Floyd video, that racism persists in our country.
As to putting my finger on the nature of the problem, you know, whether it's just outright or systemic racism, or how to tackle the issue of making it better, those things, you know, are policy questions."
Source: National Law Journal on 2022 SCOTUS Affirmative Action
Jan 24, 2022
On Energy & Oil:
Declines to acknowledge well-established climate science
Barrett's judicial philosophy--shaped by her mentor, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia--suggests that she could take a narrow view of EPA's climate authority under the Clean Air Act.Barrett declined to acknowledge well-established
climate science during her confirmation hearing last year. "I don't think I am competent to opine on what causes global warming or not,"
Barrett told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Climatewire, Oct. 15, 2020).
She later added: "I don't think that my views on global warming or climate change are relevant to the job I would do as a judge."
Source: GreenWire E&E News on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases
Nov 3, 2021
On Energy & Oil:
No extensions for refineries' Renewable Fuel Program
On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court decided HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association, which concerned small refiners' eligibility for hardship exemptions under the federal renewable fuels standards ("RFS") program. Three small fuel
refineries had each applied for a hardship exemption under the RFS program, and the EPA had granted each request. A group of renewable fuel producers then challenged those exemptions. By a vote of six to three, the Court held that the text of the
statute does not require that the exemption be held continually in order to remain valid.Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissenting justices argued that, while the majority
attributed to Congress a meaning of "extension" that is "possible," it did not give the term its "ordinary meaning." In the view of the dissenters, the "ordinary meaning" of "extension" excludes a firm that has allowed its prior exemption to lapse.
Source: JD Supra on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases
Jul 14, 2021
On Government Reform:
AZ mail-in restrictions don't violate Voting Rights Act
Arizona voting restrictions challenged as violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. First, voters casting their votes on Election Day outside their precinct are not counted. Second, mail-in ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an
election official, a mail carrier, or a voter's family or household member. The court held, 6-3, that these restrictions did not violate the Act nor were they racially discriminatory.Dissenters argued that the Court's narrow reading weakened the law
and disregarded its intent to address disparities in how election laws affect different racial groups. The rule discarding "out of precinct votes" impacted black and Hispanic voters, with Arizona leading the country in discarding such votes.
Restrictions on vote collection makes voting more difficult for Native Americans.
Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the Court. John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred.
Source: NPR commentary on 2021 SCOTUS rulings
Jul 1, 2021
On Education:
Schools are limited in regulating student off-campus speech
Summary by OnTheIssues: When then-14-year-old Brandi Levi did not make her school's varsity cheerleading squad, she posted on Snapchat "F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything." As a result, she was suspended from the junior
varsity squad for a year. Majority opinion: The Court ruled 8-1 that though there might be circumstances in which off-campus speech might fall under the purview of the school, this did not qualify. It did not involve bullying or
threatening behavior, nor did it cause any disruptions at the school. Written by Breyer; joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett.
Concurring opinion: Alito, joined by Gorsuch, focused on when a school is
acting in loco parentis, agreeing that was not the case here.
Dissenting opinion: Thomas argued that, historically, a school can regulate off-campus speech if it has a tendency to harm the school, faculty, students, or programs.
Source: 2020 SCOTUS rulings: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
Jun 23, 2021
On Health Care:
Individual mandate is constitutional even with $0 tax
The Court's decision in California v. Texas concludes that the plaintiffs trying to undo ObamaCare had no business being in court. The case was brought by Texas officials who object to ObamaCare, centered on the law's individual mandate [which] required
most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. In 2017, Congress amended ObamaCare to zero out this tax. The Texas plaintiffs claimed that this zeroed-out tax is unconstitutional and also claimed that the entire law must be
declared invalid if the zero dollar tax is stuck down.In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing: "The IRS can no longer seek a penalty; there is no possible Government
action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs' injury."
SCOTUS outcome:Authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion. Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
Source: Reuters on 2021 SCOTUS ruling:ÿ"California v. Texas"
Jun 17, 2021
On Principles & Values:
Neutral laws may impact religious groups
Barrett's opinion, which Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined, is slightly to the left of Gorsuch's view. Though Barrett agrees with Gorsuch that "if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California's regulations cannot be viewed
as neutral," she concedes that the "record is uncertain" regarding what rules apply to film studios. Significantly, Barrett's opinion also suggests that she does not want to tear down completely the
distinction between cases involving religious discrimination and cases involving universally applicable laws. "It remains unclear whether the singing ban applies across the board
(and thus constitutes a neutral and generally applicable law) or else favors certain sectors (and thus triggers more searching review)," Barrett writes.
Source: Vox.com on 2021 SCOTUS "First opinion"
Feb 6, 2021
On Government Reform:
Constitution says count all residents in census
The 6-3 conservative majority court on Monday seemed to be willing to let the administration tally some of the illegal population for the 2020 census. Trump appointee Amy Coney Barrett suggested that the Founders intended for all residents
to be counted in the Census, so that excluding illegal aliens may not pass the constitutionality test. "A lot of the historical evidence and longstanding practice really cuts against your position," she told an administrative lawyer.
Source: The New American on 2020 SCOTUS rulings
Dec 1, 2020
On Principles & Values:
Member of the conservative People of Praise faith community
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett's affiliation with the Christian community People of Praise is drawing scrutiny because of what former members and observers describe as its ultraconservative views on women.
The AP has documented extensive ties Barrett and her family have to the community,
including that an old directory listed her as being one of the organization's "handmaids," now called a "woman leader." She was a trustee of the group's
Trinity Schools, and as a young law student, lived in a house owned by one of its co-founders.
Source: Associated Press on 2022 SCOTUS Confirmation Hearing
Oct 11, 2020
On Tax Reform:
A faithful adherence to the Internal Revenue Code
Amy Coney Barrett has written a limited number of tax decisions, but they demonstrate a faithful adherence to the Internal Revenue Code.VHC Inc. v. Commissioner was an appeal from a 2017 IRS' disallowance of $92 million in bad-debt deductions claimed
by a Wisconsin holding company for loans made to the founder's son. The Tax Court agreed with the IRS and found that the debt at issue was not bona fide and therefore didn't meet the statutory requirements in the code. Barrett affirmed the Tax Court's
ruling, agreeing with the lower court that the transactions between the company and Van Den Heuvel didn't amount to a true creditor-debtor relationship, making them ineligible for the deduction under Internal Revenue Code Section 166.
In the "A.F.
Moore & Associates Inc. v. Pappas" case, Judge Barrett found a group of Cook County, Illinois, landowners were allowed to proceed in federal court to challenge their property tax assessments since they had no avenue to dispute them at a state level.
Source: Crowell Law360 blog on 2020 SCOTUS cases: "3 Tax Opinions"
Sep 26, 2020
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022