By Julia Mohr, Staff Writer
On September 18th, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pioneer of women’s rights and gender equality in academic, legal, and political circles, succumbed to pancreatic cancer. As millions mourned the loss, the question immediately arose—who would replace her?
The answer came seven days later, on September 25th, when President Donald Trump announced his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. If confirmed, the 48-year old Barrett will have the distinction of being the youngest member of the Court.
Barrett is already well known in Republican circles, where she has been lauded for her intelligence, adherence to conservative ideology, and devotion to Catholicism. She formerly served as a clerk under the late Justice Anton Scalia, a conservative-leaning judge whose views largely mirror her own. Both believed in originalism, or textualism, a school of thought that advocates for the interpretation of legal documents like the Constitution through historical context, understanding them as they were written. Originalism is the foundation for much conservative ideology and is easily recognizable in many of Barrett’s legal opinions.
As a religious conservative, Barrett’s stance on abortion is ardently pro-life. In 2006, Barrett signed a petition advocating against Roe v. Wade, the historic case granting women the right to a safe abortion. The petition stated, “It’s time to put an end to the barbaric legacy of Roe v. Wade and restore laws that protect the lives of unborn children…” Her position as presumptive Supreme Court justice means that the future of Roe v. Wade is deeply uncertain. With a stronger conservative majority, it is very likely that this landmark case will be overturned.
Barrett has consistently stated that her religious views have no influence on her legal decisions. However, her pro-life position in particular has left many questioning the legitimacy of this claim. In 2017, Barrett was questioned by Democrats concerned about the extent to which her devotion to her Catholic faith informed her legal opinions. As California Senator Dianne Feinstein stated, “Dogma and law are two different things…And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
It is no secret that Barrett is devoted to her faith—but more questionable is her alleged connection to People of Praise, a traditionalist Roman Catholic organization that is vehemently anti-abortion and advocates for a traditional household, with the man as the head of the house and the submission of the wife. Just after her nomination, however, all records of Barrett were erased from the People of Praise’s website.
Barrett has also questioned the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage nationwide in 2015 in a narrow 5–4 ruling, with Ginsburg again in the majority. She stated that because the Constitution did not comment on the issue, it should have been left to the states to decide. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have also suggested that the case should be revisited, which, with Barrett’s support, could lead to the de-legalization of gay marriage on the federal level.
Further, many have prophesied that the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett may bring about the death of the Affordable Care Act. The act was upheld in 5–4 ruling in 2012, in part due to Ginsburg’s affirming opinion. By contrast, Barrett has been outspoken in her criticism of the act in her dissent of the 2015 case King v. Burwell, where she expresses that it is at odds with originalism. Barrett writes, “…the measure of a court is its fair minded application of the rule of law, which means going where the law leads. By this measure, it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.” She also supports the conservative-headed claim that the Affordable Care Act is a “grave infringement on religious liberty” due to the precondition that employers give their employees access to contraceptives.
Barrett is also a supporter of the Second Amendment, a stance that is rooted in the philosophy of originalism. While her views on gun rights are typical of a conservative, it is worth noting that her dissent on the case of Kanter v. Barr campaigns for gun rights for felons convicted of non-violent crimes. Barrett writes, “However, the court noted that the Supreme Court “may be open to claims that some felonies do not indicate potential violence and cannot be the basis for applying a categorical ban,” and “might even be open to highly fact-specific objections.” Her confirmation to the Supreme Court will likely result in more relaxed gun control.
Amy Coney Barrett’s view on immigration is notably strict. She has been known to deny cases brought to her by immigrants requesting protection and she has supported many of Trump’s policies on immigration, an example being the wealth test, which makes a certain amount of income a requirement for immigrants. Similar to the wealth test, Barrett backed Trump’s public charge policy, which regulates the entry of immigrants based on their ability to succeed (and thus not rely on welfare programs). However, Barrett has also been essential in a landmark decision that has benefitted immigrants. In the case of Meza Morales v. Barr, Barrett upheld “administrative closure,” which authorizes an immigration judge to pause a deportation case if an immigrant is actively applying for relief, thus ensuring that the individual won’t be deported. When it comes to immigration, Barrett’s views on immigration, however, seem to generally adhere to the conservative Republican mainstream.
In a case decided in 2019, Barrett made headlines for defending a male student accused of sexual assault at Purdue University on the basis that the college had discriminated against him in accordance with Title IX. The case was noted as having “set a standard by which [schools] have to hold themselves during an investigation.”
If confirmed, Barrett’s position on the Supreme Court in place of the much more liberal Ginsburg will shift the dynamic from a 5–4 conservative majority to a 6–3 one. Considering Barrett’s strong conservative views, this will likely ensure that future rulings even more consistently reflect Republican opinions.
Image credit: The New York Times
