Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett (born 1972)[1][2] is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She is also a professor of law at Notre Dame Law School.[2][3][4] She is a prominent contender for a potential Supreme Court vacancy.[5]

Amy Coney Barrett
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Assumed office
November 2, 2017
Appointed byDonald Trump
Preceded byJohn Daniel Tinder
Personal details
Born
Amy Vivian Coney

1972 (age 47–48)
New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.
EducationRhodes College (BA)
University of Notre Dame (JD)
Spouse(s)Jesse M. Barrett
Academic work
DisciplineJurisprudence
InstitutionsUniversity of Notre Dame
WebsiteNotre Dame Law Biography

Early life and education

Born and raised in New Orleans. She was the oldest of seven children, with five sisters and one brother. Her father, Michael Coney, worked as an attorney for Shell Oil Company and her mother was a stay-at-home mom. Barrett graduated from St. Mary's Dominican High School in 1990 where she was Vice President of the student body.[6] She played piano up until she graduated from high school. In 1994, Barrett graduated magna cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from Rhodes College, where she was a Phi Beta Kappa member.[7] Following her graduation from Rhodes, Barrett attended Notre Dame Law School as a Kiley Fellow (a full-tuition scholarship). While at Notre Dame, Barrett served as an executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review. In 1997, she graduated summa cum laude from the Notre Dame Law School with a Juris Doctor. Barrett graduated first in her class, earning her the Hoynes Prize, the Law School’s highest honor.[8]

Early career

After graduating from law school, Barrett served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[9] She then spent a year as a clerk to Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1998–99.[9] During both clerkships, she was the only female law clerk. From 1999 to 2002, she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C..[10][11]

Barrett spent a year as a fellow at George Washington University before returning to her alma mater, Notre Dame, in 2002 to teach federal courts, constitutional law, and statutory interpretation. While at Notre Dame, she was named a Professor of Law in 2010, and, from 2014–17, held the Diane and M.O. Miller Research Chair of Law.[12] Barrett has continued to teach as a sitting judge.[13]

Barrett has published many law review articles and essays with a focus on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, and stare decisis.[8]

Federal judicial service

Nomination and confirmation

President Donald Trump nominated Barrett on May 8, 2017, to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to the seat vacated by Judge John Daniel Tinder, who took senior status on February 18, 2015.[14][15] Barrett is the first woman to occupy an Indiana seat on the Seventh Circuit.

Judge Barrett at her investiture

A hearing on Barrett's nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee was held on September 6, 2017.[16] During Barrett's hearing, Democratic U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein questioned Barrett about whether her Catholic faith would influence her decision-making on the court. Feinstein, concerned about whether Barrett would uphold Roe v. Wade given her Catholic beliefs, followed Barrett's response by stating "the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern".[17][18][19][20] In response to Feinstein's question, the conservative Judicial Crisis Network began to sell mugs with Barrett's photo on them and displaying the Feinstein "dogma" quote.[21] Feinstein's line of questioning was criticized by some observers and legal experts[22][23] while defended by others.[24] The issue prompted questions regarding the application of Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution which mandates: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”[25][26][22][23][24] During her hearing, Barrett said: "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."[22]

Democratic U.S. Senator Dick Durbin asked Barrett whether she was an "orthodox Catholic" and criticized her prior use of the term, "saying it unfairly maligns Catholics who do not hold certain positions about abortion or the death penalty."[26] Throughout the hearing, Barrett was heavily criticized by the Democratic Senators for a law review article she had co-written with Professor John Garvey while she was a law student. According to Barrett, that “article addressed a very narrow question” of how a “conscientious objector to the death penalty who was a trial judge would proceed if the law required that judge to enter an order of execution.” The article concluded that the trial judge should recuse herself instead of entering the order. At the hearing, several Democratic Senators held out that article as evidence that Barrett would be willing to put her faith before her judicial duties. Barrett defended herself against that accusing by noting that she participated in many death-penalty appeals when she was serving as law clerk to Justice Scalia. She also stressed: “My personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on the discharge of my duties as a judge.” Several years after her confirmation, Judge Barrett served on the Seventh Circuit appellate panel assigned to a last-minute appeal by Daniel Lewis Lee, a federal death row inmate. The district court entered two injunctions on two separate occasions to halt the execution. Judge Barrett voted with her colleagues, Chief Judge Sykes and Judge Easterbrook, on both occasions to vacate the injunctions, paving the way for what became the first federal execution in 17 years.

At Barrett’s confirmation hearing, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley stated “Professor Barrett is a brilliant legal scholar who has earned the respect of colleagues and students from across the political spectrum. She's also a committed Roman Catholic and has spoken passionately about the role that her faith plays in her life. This isn't inconsistent with being a federal judge."[27]

On October 5, 2017, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on a party-line basis of 11–9 to recommend Barrett and report her nomination to the full Senate.[28][29] On October 30, 2017, the Senate invoked cloture by a vote of 54–42.[30] The Senate confirmed her with a vote of 55–43 on October 31, 2017, with three Democrats – Joe Donnelly, Tim Kaine, and Joe Manchin – voting for her.[7] She received her commission on November 2, 2017.[2]

Notable cases

Title IX

Doe v. Purdue University, 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019).[31] In a Barrett-authored opinion, the court found in favor of a male student found guilty of sexual assault by Purdue University, which resulted in a one-year suspension, loss of his Navy ROTC scholarship, and expulsion from the ROTC affecting his ability to pursue his chosen career in the Navy. Doe alleged the school's Advisory Committee on Equity discriminated against him on the basis of his sex and violated his rights to due process by not interviewing the alleged victim, not allowing him to present evidence in his defense, including an erroneous statement that he confessed to some of the alleged assault, and appearing to believe the victim instead of the accused without hearing from either party or having even read the investigation report.[32] The court found that Doe had adequately alleged that he was deprived of his occupational liberty without due process and that he had possibly been discriminated against on the basis of sex. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.[33]

Immigration

In Cook County v. Wolf, No. 19-3169,[34] Judge Barrett wrote a 40-page dissent to the majority’s decision, upholding a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration’s new “public charge rule.” The rule heightens the standard for obtaining a green card and has been heavily criticized as causing immigrants to disenroll from government benefits. Judge Barrett began her dissent by explaining that the disenrollment, although well-documented, is caused by confusion surrounding the rule—not the rule itself. As she explained in detail, the vast majority of the people subject to the rule are not eligible for government benefits in the first place. On the merits, Judge Barrett departed from her colleagues, then-Chief Judge Wood and Judge Rovner, who held that DHS’s interpretation of that provision was unreasonable under Chevron Step Two. Judge Barrett concluded that “public charge” under the Immigration and Nationality Act was, in her own words, “a much more capacious term” than the majority’s narrow view—“not only as a matter of history, but also by virtue of the 1996 amendments to the public charge provision.” Therefore, Judge Barrett would have held that the new rule fell within the broad scope of discretion granted to the Executive by Congress. She concluded: “At bottom, the plaintiffs’ objections reflect disagreement with this policy choice and even the statutory exclusion itself. Litigation is not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes.”[35]

In Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2018), Judge Barrett authored the majority opinion in a decision denying a request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. She persuasively and concisely described that the petitioner sought asylum based on inconsistent testimony about two supposed events that prompted him to leave El Salvador for the United States. The immigration judge, whose findings are afforded great weight under settled precedent, determined that the petitioner was not being truthful. The petitioner also offered incredible evidence about the events when he submitted letters in English from his “non-English-speaking parents” who lacked “firsthand knowledge.” District Judge Durkin, sitting by designation, dissented by brushing aside the inconsistent testimony and unbelievable evidence, but as Judge Barrett noted, the adverse credibility finding by the immigration judge was supported by the record and, at any rate, that decision did not amount to an extraordinary circumstance necessary to overturn the finding.[36]

Second Amendment

Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).[37] Barrett wrote a lengthy dissent in favor of gun-ownership rights. The plaintiff was convicted of mail fraud for submitting bills to Medicare for reimbursement for non-compliant therapeutic shoe inserts. Due to his felony conviction, he was not allowed to legally possess a firearm. He challenged this denial and the majority upheld the felony dispossession statutes as "substantially related to an important government interest in preventing gun violence."[37] Barrett dissented, stating that while the government has a legitimate interest in denying gun possession to felons convicted of violent crimes, there is no evidence that denying guns to non-violent felons promotes this interest, and that denying such rights is a violation of the second amendment.[38][39] Highlighting Barrett’s historical and originalist approach, the National Review lauded Barrett’s “impressive” Kanter dissent.[40]

Fourth Amendment

William Rainsberger v. Charles Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2019). Barrett wrote the opinion in a case denying summary judgment and qualified immunity to a police detective who knowingly provided false and misleading information in an affidavit. The plaintiff, Rainsberger, was arrested for his own mother's murder based upon the defendant's falsified records used to secure a warrant for the plaintiff's arrest. The court found the defendant's lies and omissions were material to probably cause a clear violation of the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights to which the defendant is not eligible for qualified immunity.[41]

United States v. David Watson, 900 F.3d 892 (7th Cir. 2018). Involved police responding to an anonymous tip that people were "playing with guns" in a parking lot. The police arrived and searched the defendant's vehicle, taking possession of two firearms. In a motion to suppress the firearms from the vehicle search, the court found that the police lacked probable cause to search the vehicle based solely upon the tip, where no crime was actually alleged. Writing for the majority, Barrett opined "the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening. But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things, and the latter was premature…Watson's case presents a close call. But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment."[42]

Executive Power

Yafai v. Pompeo, 924 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2019).[43] A Yemeni citizen, Ahmad, and her husband, a U.S. citizen, sued to challenge a consular officer's decision to twice deny Ahmad’s visa application under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Because the doctrine of consular nonreviewability bars judicial review of visa decisions made by consular officials abroad, judicial review is only permitted when the denial implicates the constitutional rights of an American citizen—and even in that circumstance review is not available if the consular officer's decision was "facially legitimate and bona fide." Yafai, the U.S. citizen, argued that the denial of his wife’s visa application denied constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse. In an 2-1 majority opinion authored by Judge Barrett, the court held that the plaintiff’s claim was properly dismissed under the doctrine of consular nonreviewability. Judge Barrett declined to address whether the husband had been denied a constitutional right (or whether the constitutional right to live in the United States with his spouse existed at all) because the consular officer's decision to deny Ahmad’s visa application was facially legitimate and bona fide. Following the panel's decision, Yafai filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which was denied. Then-Chief Judge Wood, joined by Judges Rovner and Hamilton, dissented from the denial of rehearing, raising several arguments for the first time. In response, Judge Barrett, joined by Judge Flaum, wrote a rare opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc.[44]

Civil Procedure & Federal Courts

Casillas v. Madison Ave. Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019).[45] Casillas brought a class-action lawsuit against Madison Avenue under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She alleged that Madison Avenue failed to comply with the requirements of the FDCPA when it sent her a debt-collection letter that described the FDCPA process for verifying a debt but failed to specify in the letter that she was required to respond in writing to trigger the FDCPA protections. But Casillas had never alleged that she had tried to verify her debt and trigger the statutory protections under the FDCPA—or even that the amount she owed was in any doubt. Thus, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), the panel held that Casillas had alleged only a “bare procedural violation,” id. at 1549, and could not satisfy Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement. The mere harm of receiving incorrect or incomplete information, Judge Barrett wrote, was insufficiently concrete and could not give rise to an injury in fact. Casillas split from the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Macy v. GC Services Limited Partnership, 897 F.3d 747, 751 (6th Cir. 2018), a case that was virtually identical to Casillas. Then-Chief Judge Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. Later, the Eleventh Circuit in Trichell v. Midland Credit Management, 964 F.3d 990 (11th Cir. 2020) and the D.C. Circuit in Frank v. Autovest, 961 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2020), followed Judge Barrett’s opinion in Casillas.[46][47][48]

Judicial philosophy

Barrett considers herself an originalist. She is a constitutional scholar with expertise in statutory interpretation.[7] She has stated that faith and politics should be separated from the law and that "justice should not turn on what judge you get....If we reduce the courts to mere politics, then why do we need them? We already have politicians.”[49]

At an event in 2013 that reflected on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, she described the decision—in the paraphrase by Notre Dame Magazine—as "creating through judicial fiat a framework of abortion on demand".[50][51] She also remarked that it was "very unlikely" the court will overturn the core aspect of Roe v. Wade: "The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand. The controversy right now is about funding. It's a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded."[52][53]

Potential Supreme Court nomination

Barrett had been included on President Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees since 2017, almost immediately after her court of appeals confirmation. In July 2018, following the retirement announcement of Anthony Kennedy, she was reportedly one of three finalists, and the only woman, to be considered by Trump as a possible successor to Kennedy.[12][54] Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the position.[55] Reportedly, although the President liked Barrett, he was concerned about her lack of experience on the bench. [56] At the time, Barrett had been on the bench for less than a year. After Kavanaugh's selection, Barrett was expected to "stay in the spotlight" as a possible nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy.[57] Trump is reportedly "saving" Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat for Amy Coney Barrett if Ginsburg retires or dies during Trump's presidency.[58]

Affiliations and recognition

At Notre Dame, Barrett received the “distinguished professor of the year” award three times.[59] From 2010 to 2016, she served by appointment of the Chief Justice on the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.[59] Barrett was a member of the Federalist Society from 2005 to 2006 and 2014 to 2017.[19][7] Barrett was invited to be a member of the prestigious American Law Institute.[60]

Personal life

Amy Coney Barrett is married to Jesse M. Barrett, a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana.[61] He is now a partner at SouthBank Legal in South Bend, Indiana.[62] They have seven children: five biological children and two children adopted from Haiti. Her youngest biological child has special needs.[2][63][64]

Judge Barrett with her husband, Jesse.

Barrett is a practicing Roman Catholic.[18] While a full-time faculty member at Notre Dame, Barrett was affiliated with Faculty for Life, a pro-life group at the University of Notre Dame. In 2015, Barrett signed a joint letter to Catholic bishops which affirmed the Church's teachings including "the value of human life from conception to natural death," and that family and marriage are "founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman."[65][66]

Selected publications
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Originalism and Stare Decisis, 92 Notre Dame L. Rev 1921 (2017).[67]
  • Amy Coney Barrett & John Copeland Nagle, Congressional Originalism, 19 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1 (2016).[68]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty, 32 Const. Comment. 61 (2017) (book review).[69]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Suspension and Delegation, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 251 (2014).[70]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L. Rev. 1711 (2013).[71]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B.U. L. Rev. 109 (2010).[72]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Introduction: Stare Decisis and Nonjudicial Actors, 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1147 (2008).[73]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Procedural Common Law, 94 Virginia L. Rev. 813 (2008).[74]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, The Supervisory Power of the Supreme Court, 106 Colum. L. Rev. 101 (2006).[75]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Statutory Stare Decisis in the Courts of Appeals, 73 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 317 (2005).[76]
  • Amy Coney Barrett, Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011 (2003).[77]
  • Amy Coney Barrett & John H. Garvey, Catholic Judges in Capital Cases, 81 Marq. L. Rev. 303 (1998).[78]

See also

References
  1. Editors (September 22, 2017). "JFK, Amy Coney Barrett and Anti-Catholicism". National Catholic Register. Archived from the original on October 7, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)
  2. "Barrett, Amy Coney | Federal Judicial Center". www.fjc.gov. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  3. Lloyd, Alice B. (July 6, 2018). "Former Law Students Praise Amy Coney Barrett". The Weekly Standard. Retrieved July 9, 2018. Students, being familiar with her scholarship and lectures, knew her to be a consistent textualist and originalist.
  4. "These Are Trump's Candidates for the Supreme Court". Time. Retrieved July 9, 2018. Coney Barrett has written extensively about Constitutional originalism, a legal tradition that advocates for an interpretation of the Constitution based on the meaning it would have had at the time it was written.
  5. Baker, Jonathan Swan,Sam. "Scoop: Trump "saving" Judge Amy Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat". Axios. Retrieved August 12, 2020.
  6. Aymond, Gregory M (September 19, 2017).Senate Violated A Constitution Ban Archived April 26, 2019, at the Wayback Machine, Clarion Herald
  7. "Potential nominee profile: Amy Coney Barrett – SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. July 4, 2018. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  8. "Amy Coney Barrett bio". University of Notre Dame School of Law. Archived from the original on September 2, 2012. Retrieved May 8, 2017.
  9. "Nominee Report" (PDF). Alliance for Justice. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  10. Lat, David (May 1, 2017). "Circuit Court Nominees in the Trump Administration: A Nationwide Round-Up". Above the Law. Archived from the original on May 6, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2017.
  11. Carr, Thomas B. (July 26, 2004). "Letters to the Editor: 'Now-Defunct' Miller, Cassidy". National Law Journal. Archived from the original on September 30, 2017. Retrieved September 29, 2017.(subscription required)
  12. Nicholas, Peter; Radnofsky, Louise (July 5, 2018). "Trump Winnows Down Supreme Court Picks, Focusing on Three". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
  13. Severino, Carrie (May 7, 2017). "Bench Memos: Who Is Amy Coney Barrett?". National Review. Archived from the original on October 7, 2017. Retrieved May 8, 2017.
  14. "Presidential Nomination 369, 115th United States Congress". United States Congress. May 8, 2017. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
  15. Staff (May 8, 2017). "Trump Names 10 Conservatives It Plans to Nominate to Federal Courts". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved September 29, 2017.
  16. "Rescheduled Notice of Committee Hearing". Senate Judiciary Committee. August 4, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  17. Dianne Feinstein Attacks Judicial Nominee’s Catholic Faith, National Review, Alexandra DeSanctis, September 6, 2017. Retrieved September 9, 2018.
  18. Green, Emma (September 8, 2017). "Should a Judge's Nomination Be Derailed by Her Faith?". The Atlantic. Retrieved July 1, 2018.
  19. Goodstein, Laurie (September 28, 2017). "Some Worry About Judicial Nominee's Ties to a Religious Group". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 28, 2017. Retrieved July 4, 2018.
  20. "Feinstein: 'The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern'". The Washington Post. September 7, 2017. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
  21. "Donnelly one of few Democrats to back potential Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett". Indianapolis Star. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  22. Gerstein, Josh (September 11, 2017). "Senators take fire over questions for Catholic judicial nominee". Politico. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
  23. Eisgruber, Christopher L. (September 8, 2017). "Letter from President Eisgruber to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Regarding the Use of Religious Tests". Princeton University: Office of the President. Archived from the original on October 7, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  24. Aron, Nan. "Forget the critics, Feinstein did the right thing by questioning a judicial nominee on her faith and the law". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 30, 2018.
  25. "EDITORIAL: Religious Tests Unfit for Court". September 15, 2017. Retrieved July 10, 2018.
  26. "Did Durbin and Feinstein Impose a Religious Test for Office?". National Review. September 8, 2017. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
  27. "Senate votes to confirm Amy Coney Barrett to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals". Washington Examiner. October 31, 2017. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  28. Freking, Kevin (October 6, 2017). "Committee Recommends Notre Dame Professor Amy Coney Barrett for U.S. Judicial Bench". South Bend Tribune. Associated Press. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  29. "Daily Digest/Senate Committee Meetings, Committee on the Judiciary". Congressional Record, 115th Congress, 1st Session. 163 (160): D1059–D1060. October 5, 2017. Retrieved October 7, 2017.
  30. "U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress – 1st Session". www.senate.gov. Retrieved May 8, 2018.
  31. "Doe v. Purdue University, No. 17-3565 (7th Cir. 2019)". Justia Law. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  32. Reporters, ALEXANDRA WELIEVER AND JACKIE LE Staff. "Appeals court reverses dismissal of sex-assault lawsuit". Purdue Exponent. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  33. "7th Circuit reinstates student case against Purdue in sexual assault case". www.theindianalawyer.com. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  34. "Cook County v. Wolf, No. 19-3169 (7th Cir. 2020)". Justia Law. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  35. "Cook County v. Wolf, No. 19-3169 (7th Cir. 2020)". Justia Law. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  36. http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D08-28/C:17-2920:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2209369:S:0
  37. "Kanter v. Barr, No. 18-1478 (7th Cir. 2019)". Justia Law. Retrieved May 19, 2019.
  38. "If Donald Trump gets another Supreme Court pick..." The Economist. May 16, 2019. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved May 19, 2019.
  39. "Judge Barrett's Dissent in Second Amendment Case". National Review. March 18, 2019. Retrieved May 19, 2019.
  40. Whelan, Ed. "Judge Barrett's Dissent in Second Amendment Case".
  41. "IMPD detective must stand trial on false affidavit in murder". www.theindianalawyer.com. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  42. "7th Circuit says vacated Fourth Amendment case was 'close call'". www.theindianalawyer.com. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  43. Curiam, Per. "YAFAI v. POMPEO | 924 F.3d 969 (2019) | By Per Curiam | 20190523114 | Leagle.com". Leagle. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  44. "Dissent Slams 7th Circ.'s Rehearing Denial For Yemeni Couple - Law360". www.law360.com. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  45. "Casillas v. Madison Avenue Associates, Inc, No. 17-3162 (7th Cir. 2019)". Justia Law. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  46. Stancombe, Katie. "7th Circuit debt collection ruling creates split among circuits". The Indiana Lawyer. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  47. "Seventh Circuit's "No Harm, No Foul" Holding Requires Concrete Harm in Consumer Lending Cases". Consumer Finance Legal Report. July 29, 2019. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  48. "7th Circuit rejects lawsuit over collection letter, says no harm shown". Reuters. June 5, 2019. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
  49. http://www.washingtontimes.com, The Washington Times. "Amy Coney Barrett, potential Supreme Court nominee: 'Justice should not turn on what judge you get'". The Washington Times. Retrieved May 23, 2019.
  50. "Amy Coney Barrett, possible Supreme Court nominee, has backed 'flexible' approach to court precedent". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  51. "Students, faculty mark 40 years of Roe // News // Notre Dame Magazine // University of Notre Dame". magazine.nd.edu. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  52. "Law professor reflects on landmark case // The Observer". The Observer. January 21, 2013. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  53. Groppe, Maureen (July 8, 2018). "What Supreme Court contender Amy Coney Barrett has said about abortion and 9 other issues". The Indianapolis Star. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  54. "Indiana's Amy Coney Barrett on list of 25 likely Supreme Court candidates". Indianapolis Star. June 28, 2018. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
  55. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court.html Brett Kavanaugh to Supreme Court], The New York Times, Mark Landler and Maggie Haberman, July 9, 2018. Retrieved September 25, 2018.
  56. url= https://www.npr.org/2018/07/06/626118139/trumps-top-two-supreme-court-picks-reflect-warring-republican-factions
  57. Judge Amy Coney Barrett passed over for Supreme Court will stay in spotlight, Sun Times, Jon Seidel and Lynn Sweet, July 18, 2018. Retrieved September 25, 2018.
  58. Perper, Rosie. "Trump is reportedly 'saving' a seat on the Supreme Court for conservative Amy Barrett in place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Business Insider. Retrieved July 8, 2019.
  59. Dame, Marketing Communications: Web | University of Notre. "Amy - Barrett | The Law School | University of Notre Dame". The Law School. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  60. Institute, The American Law. "Members". American Law Institute. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  61. "Class Notes: Class of 1996". Notre Dame Magazine. Winter 2012–2013. Archived from the original on March 29, 2013. Retrieved May 8, 2017.
  62. "SouthBank Legal". southbank.legal. Retrieved August 8, 2020.
  63. "Senate Violated A Constitution Ban". Clarion Herald. September 19, 2017. Archived from the original on June 30, 2018. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
  64. Desmond, Joan (July 2, 2018). "Will This Catholic Jurist Be the Newest Supreme Court Justice?". National Catholic Register. Retrieved July 3, 2018.
  65. "Supreme Court opening: Indiana's Amy Coney Barrett a favorite of grassroots conservatives". Indianapolis Star. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  66. "Letter to Synod Fathers from Catholic Women". Ethics & Public Policy Center. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  67. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  68. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=jcl. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  69. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=concomm. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  70. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4618&context=clr. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  71. (PDF) http://texaslawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Barrett.pdf. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  72. (PDF) https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/barrett.pdf. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  73. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=ndlr. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  74. (PDF) https://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/813.pdf. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  75. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1440&context=law_faculty_scholarship. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  76. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1794&context=law_faculty_scholarship. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  77. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=law_faculty_scholarship. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  78. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1523&context=law_faculty_scholarship. Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
Legal offices
Preceded by
John Daniel Tinder		 Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
2017–present		 Incumbent
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.