Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.
Amy Coney Barrett
On September 26, 2020, President Trump named Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Supreme Court. Barrett currently sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She was a law professor at Notre Dame, where she was a member of a faculty anti-abortion group called "Faculty for Life." She was also a member of the conservative Federalist Society from 2005-2006 and 2014-2017, and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
Seventh Circuit Decisions
Full List of Seventh Circuit Opinions Authored by Amy Coney Barrett
From Scoutusblog, a full list of decisions that Amy Coney Barrett authored while sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Doe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019).
Writing for the majority, Barrett justified reversing a trial court's dismissal of a male student's complaint that Purdue University discriminated against him on the basis of sex and violated his 14th Amendment due process rights by suspending him after finding that he had committed a sexual assault.
McCottrell v. White, 933 F.3d 651 (7th Cir. 2019).
In dissent, Barrett argues that prison guards who fired "warning shots" into a ceiling (rather than a "shot box" designed to prevent ricochet) above a cafeteria full of inmates could not have had malicious and sadistic intent.
Cook County v. Wolf, 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020).
In dissent, Barrett disagreed with the court's grant of a stay of the Trump administration rule that deems an immigrant inadmissible based on acceptance of non-cash public benefits, like food stamps and housing assistance. This case and related cases from other circuits are teed up to be heard by the Supreme Court.
Law Review and Law Journal Articles
Amy Coney Barrett, Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L.R. 1711 (2013).
Barrett writes that the principle of stare decisis should be considered a weak presumption in favor of retaining precedent in constitutional cases. She argues against a strong role for stare decisis in constitutional cases. "It forces the Court to proceed cautiously and thoughtfully before reversing course, but it does not force the Court to retain precedent." Specifically with regard to Roe v. Wade, she sates, "If anything, the public response to controversial cases like Roe reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent Victoria a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging."
Amy Coney Barrett, Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty: Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People, 32 Const. Comment. 61 (2017)(book review).
Barrett critiques a book that argues for enhanced constitutional reviewability of legislation, also attacking Chief Justice John Roberts for straying from strict textualism to affirm the Affordable Care Act.
May Barrett & John H. Garvey, Catholic Judges in Capital Cases, 81 Marq. L. Rev. 303 (1997-98).
Barrett and Garvey argue that Catholic judges who are opposed to the death penalty on religious grounds should recuse themselves, at least from the sentencing portions of cases.