How will Judge Barrett rule?
By: Women In Politics
Tags: Government, Supreme Court, Justice, Politics, Women In Politics

By Ira Sharma

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a name you’ve probably seen in the headlines many times in the past few weeks. Since she was nominated by President Trump, the 48-year old federal judge has been scrutinized head to toe. A major question that has come up in the minds of lawmakers and citizens alike is whether she’ll be able to keep her Catholic faith out of her rulings, particularly in cases like Roe v. Wade.

While Judge Barrett has spoken openly about her Catholic faith, she hasn’t ruled on any abortion-related cases, and when asked about her stance on Roe v. Wade, she said, “All nominees are united in their belief that what they think about a precedent should not bear on how they decide cases.” President Trump has promised to nominate pro-life judges, so many believe that regardless of what she says, Judge Barrett would be one of 4 justices that would vote to overturn Roe.

Kanter v. Barr was a case argued in the 7th circuit before Judge Barrett in 2019. Rickey Kanter was the owner and CEO of Rikco International, LLC. Rikco International, which did business as “Dr. Comfort,” manufactured therapeutic shoes and inserts for individuals with diabetes and severe foot disease. He sold shoes and insets to podiatrists who would sell them to patients, and most of these shoes and inserts were billed and paid by Medicare. However, in April 2004, Kanter submitted his inserts to Medicare to see if they were eligible for Medicare. Medicare rejected Kanter’s inserts because they were too thin by their standards. Kanter decided to submit different samples that were thicker, that were approved. Illegally, he continued to sell the inserts that were not approved while marking that they were. Medicare ended up paying $375,000 for shoes and inserts that weren’t compliant with guidelines. Kanter ended up pleading guilty to mail fraud based on a shipment of the illegal inserts to a podiatrist and was sentenced to one year and one day of prison, as well as two years of supervision after release. Additionally, he paid $50,000 in a criminal penalty. He served his punishment completely and hasn’t been charged with any other crimes. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.

When the case found its way to the Supreme Court, Judge Barrett dissented, and said in her opinion, “Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”

Another highly controversial case that passed through her 7th circuit courthouse is Doe v. Purdue University. In this case, John Doe was accused and found guilty of sexual violence against Jane Doe by Purdue University, his Navy ROTC scholarship was stripped, he was suspended for a year, and conditions were imposed upon his readmission. John sued the university, claiming that his 14th amendment rights had been violated and that Purdue had violated Title IX by imposing a punishment based on sex bias. He claimed that the university had deprived him of his “life, liberty, and property” without due process of law and that his expulsion from the Navy ROTC and his scholarship was on the basis of his sex, also illegal. In Judge Barrett’s decision, she wrote that in terms of constitutional due process, John Doe was correct that the university violated his rights. Barrett overturned the case on the grounds of bias against him because he is male, finding that he should be allowed to continue with these charges.

Amy Coney Barret being sworn into The Supreme Court

In 2014, 3 Chicago police officers stopped 3 black men traveling in a grey sedan, being suspicious that they were related to a drive-by shooting that had happened a few hours earlier. The officers were given a dispatch shortly earlier referring to the suspects in the shooting being 3 black men driving in a grey car. The 3 men stopped filed a lawsuit a year later against the officers under the 4th amendment that it was an unreasonable stop. Judge Barrett agreed with a federal district court that the stop was lawful, and the officers were covered under qualified immunity as they were acting under the conditions of the 4th amendment.

All in all, Judge Barrett will be a major impact on the Supreme Court. She will tilt the court to a 6–3 conservative to liberal ratio and will change the course of every case that passes through the Court.

Kanter v. Barr, 919 F.3d 437, 440 (7th Cir. 2019)

Doe v. Purdue Univ., №17–3565, 2 (7th Cir. Jun. 28, 2019)

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/10/symposium-a-close-look-at-barretts-rulings-on-qualified-immunity/