Trump Picks Amy Coney Barrett to Replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court

She has never tried a case or argued an appeal.

A woman holds a placard in support of Judge Amy Coney Barrett as a potential nominee for Supreme Court Justice as supporters of U.S President Donald Trump arrive at a Great American Comeback campaign rally at the Jacksonville JetPort at Cecil Airport. Paul Hennessy/Sipa via AP Images

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

President Trump announced today that he would nominate 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the seat on the Supreme Court vacated after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last week.

Barrett, 48, is a favorite of evangelicals who hope that she’ll join with the court’s other conservatives to overturn Roe v. Wade. Trump appointed Barrett to the 7th Circuit in 2017, in what court watchers believed was the first step to elevating her to the high court. She had impeccable conservative credentials as a former clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia and an active member in the Federalist Society, which has effectively managed Trump’s judicial nominations. But for a Supreme Court nominee, her resume was somewhat thin.

She spent only two years in private law practice and has never tried a case or argued an appeal. Nor has she argued before the Supreme Court, as had another law professor, Justice Elena Kagan, before she was nominated to the high court. Most of Barrett’s private legal work involved only civil cases, not criminal ones. While she’d spent 15 years as a law professor at Notre Dame, her alma mater, Barrett had never served as a judge until Trump tapped her for the 7th Circuit.  

Barrett couldn’t be more different from the woman she might replace. Her nomination is comparable to President George H.W. Bush’s replacement of civil rights icon Justice Thurgood Marshall with arch-conservative Justice Clarence Thomas.

Barrett is popular with evangelicals and conservative Christians because she’s a devout Catholic with seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti and the youngest of whom has Down syndrome. She is viewed as staunchly anti-abortion, thanks to her association with Faculty for Life at Notre Dame and her opposition to the birth-control coverage mandated in the Affordable Care Act, which she called “a grave infringement on religious liberty.” Barrett is also affiliated with a charismatic Christian group called People of Praise, in which female members were until recently assigned personal advisers called “handmaids.”

Members of the group take a covenant pledging lifelong loyalty to each other and donate five percent of their income to the group, which teaches that men have authority over the family, including their wives. They believe in prophecy, divine healing, and speaking in tongues, practices that could make for an interesting confirmation hearing. Barrett did not disclose her membership in People of Praise before her 7th Circuit confirmation, but Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) attempted to probe her religious beliefs during her hearing, saying that “the dogma lives loudly within you,” a comment that has led Republicans to accuse Democrats of anti-Catholic bias.

But even former members of People of Praise have opposed Barrett’s nomination to the high court. As I wrote this week:

Two years ago, when Barrett’s name was floated as a potential candidate to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, a post appeared in a Facebook group of ex-members of charismatic Christian communities. “I don’t want a current member of this cult to be sitting on the Supreme Court,” the onetime People of Praise member wrote. “And it was not very many years ago that I admired them very much and was almost seduced into thinking they had something spiritually real and rich going for them.” More recently, another ex-member wrote, “I think we better start now fighting her nomination. I can’t quite imagine People of Praise on the Supreme Court.”

Since joining the 7th Circuit, Barrett has been a reliable conservative vote on cases involving immigration and sex discrimination, and wrote a notable dissent in a gun case, in which she argued that a law banning people found guilty of a felony from owning guns violated the Second Amendment. Her reasoning was that the man in the case had been guilty of mail fraud, a nonviolent offense. The case was an example of her originalist legal philosophy, as she based her argument on the fact that in the early days of the republic, legislatures took guns away only from people who were considered dangerous.  

Hearings on Barrett’s nomination are likely to be scheduled as soon as possible, given Trump’s desire to have her installed on the court before the presidential election on November 3.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with The Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate