Let's Look At Her Record: Abortion, campus sexual assault, Second Amendment: Some notable Amy Coney Barrett cases

President Donald Trump announced Saturday that he nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy on the United States Supreme Court caused by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

A former clerk for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the 48-year-old Barrett was previously confirmed by Trump to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Many conservatives celebrated the nomination, believing that Barrett has a good track record on various legal issues and commending her for her devout Catholic beliefs.

Meanwhile, many progressives denounced the nomination, in part because of a concern that if confirmed, Barrett will turn the clock back on abortion and LGBT rights.

Here are some cases that Barrett was involved in on certain hot-button issues, including abortion, campus sexual assault investigation standards and gun regulations. They include authored opinions as well as dissents that she joined.

In Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, et al. v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health et al., the Seventh Circuit denied a full court rehearing.

At issue was an Indiana law requiring that aborted baby remains be given a respectable disposal. The regulation law had been ruled against by a three judge panel.

Barrett joined a dissent authored by Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook, arguing that the Seventh Circuit should have granted a hearing before the full court.

“Animal-welfare statutes are rational not simply because all mammals can feel pain and may well have emotions, but also because animal welfare affects human welfare,” read the Easterbrook dissent:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D06-25/C:17-3163:J:PerCuriam:aut:T:npDp:N:2176287:S:0

“… a ban on slaughtering horses for human consumption is rationally related to the goal of reducing dismay at poor treatment of these creatures … Isn’t that equally true of a statute about fetal remains?”

In Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. v. Kristina Box et al., Barrett joined a dissent by Circuit Judge Michael Stephen Kanne seeking a rehearing of a case.

At the center of the litigation was another Indiana law, this time requiring minors to give parental notification before undergoing an abortion procedure.

"This case implicates an important and recurring issue of federalism: Under what circumstances, and with what evidence, may a state be prevented from enforcing its law before it goes into effect?" wrote Judge Kanne.

"Given the existing unsettled status of pre-enforcement challenges in the abortion context, I believe this issue should be decided by our full court. Preventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure."

In the case of John Doe v. Perdue University, a former student sued the university, arguing that they had wrongfully found him guilty of sexual assault by violating his rights.

At issue were claims that the process, inspired by the Obama administration’s controversial standards aimed at combatting on-campus sexual assault, were in error.

Barrett delivered the opinion for the Seventh Circuit three judge panel, partly reversing a lower court ruling against the student and concluding that his rights were violated.

“It is plausible that [Katherine] Sermersheim, [Purdue’s Dean of Students and a Title IX coordinator] and her advisors chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man," wrote Barrett. SEE HERE:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D06-28/C:17-3565:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2362429:S:0

"Taken together, John’s allegations raise a plausible inference that he was denied an educational benefit on the basis of his sex.

“To be sure, John may face problems of proof, and the factfinder might not buy the inferences that he’s selling. But his claim should have made it past the pleading stage, so we reverse the magistrate judge’s premature dismissal of it.”

In the case of William Rainsberger v. Charles Benner, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Detective Charles Benner was sued for allegedly mishandling a murder case.

Benner attempted to seek qualified immunity, which shields government officials from lawsuits claiming they violated a person’s rights unless it can be “clearly established.”

However, Barrett authored an opinion as part of a three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit, rejecting his claim and upholding a lower court ruling against Benner.

“Benner concedes for purposes of this appeal that he knowingly or recklessly made false statements in the probable cause affidavit. He emphasizes, however, that knowingly or recklessly misleading the magistrate in a probable cause affidavit—whether by omissions or outright lies—only violates the Fourth Amendment if the omissions and lies were material to probable cause,” wrote Barrett. SEE HERE:

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2019/D01-15/C:17-2521:J:Barrett:aut:T:fnOp:N:2278945:S:0

“Benner’s affidavit fails to establish probable cause to believe that Rainsberger murdered his mother. Because it is clearly established that it violates the Fourth Amendment ‘to use deliberately falsified allegations to demonstrate probable cause,’ Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 168 (1978), Benner is not entitled to qualified immunity.”

In the case of Ricky I. Kanter v. William P. Barr, a three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit weighed on whether an individual convicted of mail fraud could legally own a firearm.

A majority of the panel ruled in favor of a Wisconsin law banning convicted felons from owning a gun, but Barrett authored a lengthy dissent taking with the broadness of the regulation.

“Absent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the governments cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms,” wrote Barrett. See here:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1478/18-1478-2019-03-15.html

“And while both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data … that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest.”

I’d love to see more of a record from her on 2A cases, but that opinion is promising at least. She’s absolutely right that keeping someone disarmed for life after having served their sentence is not advancing the interest of public safety. Quite the opposite: it’s a backdoor method of disarming people abused by liberals in Maryland, California, and elsewhere via retroactive reclassification of criminal offenses.

“Oh, you got into a bar fight in 1975 and paid a $50 fine and spent a night in jail? Well it’s now 25 years later and you can no longer own a gun for the rest of your life!” Seriously, that’s the kind of crap they’re pulling to disarm everyone. If you’re so dangerous you can’t be allowed to have a gun, then you’re clearly too dangerous to be walking around outside of prison.

"She’s absolutely right that keeping someone disarmed for life after having served their sentence is not advancing the interest of public safety. Quite the opposite: it’s a backdoor method of disarming people abused by liberals in Maryland, California, and elsewhere via retroactive reclassification of criminal offenses."

Her opinion there was based on the fact that it was non-violent felony, not an old one. It was mail fraud.

I think I now know why some here are so strongly against Barrett.

"Benner concedes for purposes of this appeal that he knowingly or recklessly made false statements in the probable cause affidavit. He emphasizes, however, that knowingly or recklessly misleading the magistrate in a probable cause affidavit—whether by omissions or outright lies—only violates the Fourth Amendment if the omissions and lies were material to probable cause," wrote Barrett.

SEE HERE

"Benner’s affidavit fails to establish probable cause to believe that Rainsberger murdered his mother. Because it is clearly established that it violates the Fourth Amendment 'to use deliberately falsified allegations to demonstrate probable cause,' Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 168 (1978), Benner is not entitled to qualified immunity."

There are many here who would apparently feel some threatened if 'qualified immunity' were reigned in a bit.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.