Appearance
Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 28, 1972. She married Jesse M. Barrett in 1999, and they have seven children. She received a B.A. from Rhodes College in 1994 and a J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. She served as a law clerk for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1997 to 1998, and for Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1998 Term. After two years in private law practice in Washington, D.C., she became a law professor, joining the faculty of Notre Dame Law School in 2002. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017. President Donald J. Trump nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat on October 27, 2020.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) — Majority Vote
AP News:
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade "Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade"
Why critics argue it’s impeachable‑adjacent:
- Barrett’s vote helped overturn Roe, fulfilling a long‑standing political goal of groups that supported her nomination.
- Critics argue she should have recused due to her past public statements and affiliations with anti‑abortion organizations.
- Some legal scholars say her participation blurred the line between judicial neutrality and ideological activism.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (2021) — Barrett Concurrence
AP News:
Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency in LGBTQ dispute "Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency in LGBTQ dispute"
Why critics argue it’s impeachable‑adjacent:
- Barrett’s concurrence signaled openness to revisiting Employment Division v. Smith, a foundational precedent on religious liberty.
- Critics say this aligns with the agenda of conservative religious groups that supported her confirmation.
- Some argue her participation raises conflict‑of‑interest concerns due to her past involvement with religious legal networks.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard/UNC (2023) — Majority Vote
AP News:
Supreme Court ends affirmative action in college admissions "Supreme Court ends affirmative action in college admissions"
Why critics argue it’s impeachable‑adjacent:
- Barrett joined the majority ending affirmative action, a ruling critics say ignored decades of precedent.
- Some argue she should have recused because of her past work with conservative legal organizations involved in the case.
- Critics frame this as part of a pattern of ideological judging rather than neutral interpretation.
Biden v. Nebraska (2023) — Majority Vote
AP News:
Supreme Court blocks Biden's student loan forgiveness plan "Supreme Court blocks Biden's student loan forgiveness plan"
Why critics argue it’s impeachable‑adjacent:
- Barrett joined the majority striking down student loan relief, which critics say relied on an invented “major questions doctrine.”
- Some argue she should have recused because her husband’s law firm has represented clients in financial and corporate sectors affected by the ruling.
- Critics say this reflects a pattern of decisions favoring conservative political interests.
Shadow Docket Emergency Orders (2020–2024)
AP News:
Supreme Court's use of the "shadow docket" draws scrutiny "Supreme Court's use of the 'shadow docket' draws scrutiny"
Why critics argue it’s impeachable‑adjacent:
- Barrett has repeatedly joined major rulings issued without full briefing or oral argument.
- Critics argue this undermines transparency and due process.
- Some legal scholars say the shadow docket has been used to advance conservative outcomes without public accountability.
Recusal Controversies (2021–2024)
AP News:
Ethics concerns grow around Supreme Court justices "Ethics concerns grow around Supreme Court justices"
Why critics argue it’s impeachable‑adjacent:
- Barrett has declined to recuse from cases involving groups she previously worked with or supported.
- Critics point to her past ties to the Federalist Society and religious legal organizations.
- Some argue her participation in politically charged cases raises questions about impartiality.
COVID‑19 Religious Gathering Cases (2020–2021)
AP News:
Supreme Court sides with religious groups in COVID restrictions cases "Supreme Court sides with religious groups in COVID restrictions cases"
Why critics argue it’s impeachable‑adjacent:
- Barrett joined decisions striking down COVID restrictions on religious gatherings.
- Critics argue these rulings privileged religious institutions over public health.
- Some say her votes aligned with the interests of groups that supported her confirmation.
|