How Amy Coney Barrett is confounding the right and the left

Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Now Trump is attacking the judiciary and testing the Constitution, and Barrett, appointed to clinch a 50-year conservative legal revolution, is showing signs of leftward drift.
Advertisement
She has become the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority in decisions that reach a liberal outcome, according to a new analysis of her record prepared for The New York Times. Her influence -- measured by how often she is on the winning side -- is rising. Along with the chief justice, a frequent voting partner, Barrett could be one of the few people in the country to check the actions of the president.
Advertisement
Overall, her assumption of the seat once held by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has moved the court's outcomes dramatically to the right and locked in conservative victories on gun rights, affirmative action and the power of federal agencies. But in Trump-related disputes, she is the member of the supermajority who has sided with him the least.
That position is making her the focus of animus, hope and debate.
In interviews, some liberals who considered the court lost when she was appointed have used phrases like, 'It's all on Amy.' When Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed on nonunanimous decisions this term, Barrett joined them 82% of the time -- up from 39% of the time in her first term.
Some of Trump's allies have turned on her, accusing the justice of being a turncoat and calling her -- a mother of seven, with two Black children adopted from Haiti -- a 'DEI hire.' Her young son asked why she had a bulletproof vest, she said in a speech last year, and her extended family has been threatened, including with pizza deliveries that convey a warning: We know where you live.
'We had too much hope for her,' Mike Davis, a right-wing legal activist with close ties to the Trump administration, said in a recent interview. 'She doesn't have enough courage.'
This spring, on Steve Bannon's podcast, Davis tore into her in such crude terms, even mocking the size of her family, that Justice Neil Gorsuch, for whom Davis had once clerked, phoned him to express disapproval of his comments, according to people aware of the exchange. Trump has privately complained about her too, according to two people familiar with his thinking.
Advertisement
But she rarely abandons the other Republican appointees in the most significant cases. 'It's a mistake by ignorant conservatives and wishful liberals to believe she's moderating,' said Noah Feldman, a Harvard University law professor who befriended her when they clerked at the court. Like others who know her, he said that both the right and the left had misread her. 'She's exactly the person I met 25 years ago: principled, absolutely conservative, not interested in shifting
.
"
Friends, former colleagues and people from the court describe the justice as more of a methodical problem solver than an architect with grand plans for the law. 'A law professor to my bones,' she said in a 2022 talk, referring to her years teaching at Notre Dame Law School. When others tried to draft her for the bench, she was uncertain about becoming a judge, according to those who know her well. She still maintains a tucked-away office at Notre Dame.
Some on the right are turning her scholarly background against her, complaining that she is too fussy about the fine points of the law and sounding a rallying cry of 'no more academics' for future appointments.
On the court, she stands somewhat alone. One of only two former law professors, she is also the least experienced judge, the youngest member of the group, at 53, and the only mother of grade-school children ever to serve. The sole current justice who was not educated at Harvard or Yale University, she is a Washington outsider and foreigner to the power-player Beltway posts that shaped most of her colleagues.
Advertisement
She strikes an earnest tone in talking about her job. 'The day that I think I am better than the next person in the grocery store checkout line is a bad day,' she said in a 2022 talk.
Her apartness shows in her votes and her signature move of joining only slices of her colleagues' opinions. She agrees with most of the supermajority's outcomes, but sometimes writes to say they took the wrong route to their conclusion. (One person from the court called her the Hermione Granger of the conservatives, telling the men they're doing it wrong.) Or she joins the liberal justices but stipulates that she can't fully buy in.
'She hasn't found a team,' said Sarah Isgur, a legal podcast host, pointing to her habit of marking where she departs from conservative colleagues, and to a recent death penalty ruling in which she was sitting 'in the middle of that decision.'
But the Trump administration's conflict with the courts and pushing of constitutional boundaries may force her to take a more decisive stance. Of the three justices at the center of the court, where the most influence lies, she is the only one without a long trail of views on how much power a president should have -- the issue at the heart of nearly all these cases.
'She doesn't have 10 years to mellow into it,' Feldman said. 'Now is the crisis.'
The professor and the beltway
One morning in April, the justices formed a nine-person frieze of contrasts as they heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, over whether parents of public elementary school students are entitled to religious exemptions from lessons involving books about LGBTQ+ people. Alito, quick to favor exemptions, clashed with Sotomayor, who was skeptical. As she spoke, Alito shut his eyes and leaned far back in his chair.
Advertisement
Barrett composed herself into a portrait of someone in listening mode, eyes trained, chin resting on hands. She asked open-ended, just-trying-to-understand questions, then sharper ones, moving in on a factual hole in the school's argument and politely forcing the lawyer to admit it. By the time the justices rose, American parents seemed likely to gain more control over the ideas their children encounter in public school.
Her queries made a similar impression when she arrived as a student at Notre Dame Law three decades ago: She was so incisive that several instructors said they were learning from her. She won a clerkship with Justice Antonin Scalia but then chose the quiet work of a law professor.
Not the hotshot kind: 'She wasn't trying to break big new ground,' recalled Joseph P. Bauer, her civil procedure teacher and, later, fellow faculty member. 'She is not going to present an argument that shifts the paradigm, or reconceives ways of looking at things, or makes big moves.'
The courses she taught were about the rules of the road -- evidence, procedure, the fine-grained reading of laws. In her own scholarship, she delved into questions that even some academics considered too nerdy to answer. Mark McKenna, a former faculty member, said, 'I remember people pushing her, 'Does anyone care about these things?''
Although others envisioned her on the bench, she was not sold. By 2017, when a seat opened up on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering three Midwestern states, she had a stack of teaching awards and a brimming family life, including a young child with Down syndrome. William Kelley, a Notre Dame colleague with Washington connections, encouraged her but figured she would not pursue it, he said.
Advertisement
'Attention, power, cool things, elitism -- she has zero interest,' he said of his friend, who once served on the university's parking committee.
But she said yes. During Senate confirmation hearings Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked her a maladroit question about her Catholicism. 'The dogma lives loudly within you,' the senator said, implying that her rulings would flow from Rome. It was insulting -- and lucky.
The nominee became an instant lodestar for religious women. The White House counsel's team made mugs emblazoned with her face and Feinstein's words. That year, Donald F. McGahn II, the head of that office, showed up at her judicial investiture. Six months later, Trump was interviewing her for the Supreme Court seat that went to Judge Brett Kavanaugh. She had been on the bench for only a year and barely had a record.
Two years later, in 2020, she was nominated before Ginsburg was even buried. Though the presidential election was only six weeks away, Republicans raced her through the confirmation process, four years after they blocked President Barack Obama's nominee on the grounds that an election was coming in eight months.
Trump's comments about Barrett in 2020 and his more recent complaints were relayed by several people who requested anonymity to share confidential information. Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said that Trump 'may disagree with the court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role.'
The ramrod-straight jurist had little in common personally with Trump. 'When I think of Amy, I think of someone deeply devoted to family and faith, who does not seek out the limelight, who is humble and just wants to quietly do the work,' said Amanda Tyler, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley; former clerk to Ginsburg; and longtime friend to Barrett. To lawmakers, the nominee stressed her independence.
But the president had already said the justices he appointed would be 'automatic' votes to overturn Roe v. Wade. On the public stage, certain facts (her large family and membership in a religious community that had once called women leaders 'handmaids') overshadowed others (when she became a federal judge, every member of her clerkship class, liberals included, endorsed her). Partisans said she stood for their greatest hopes or worst fears. She was confirmed without a single Democratic vote.
The new justice arrived at a Supreme Court that was operating under pandemic conditions and still in mourning. 'I didn't know how I would be received,' she would later say. Liberals were unsure how the court would ever again garner the five votes necessary to prevail in a case.
Barrett set her own path in the first major case she heard.
In Fulton v. Philadelphia, the justices considered whether the city could exclude a Catholic agency from its foster care system because it refused to work with LGBTQ+ couples. Alito had long sought to overturn a 1990 precedent, written by Scalia, that said religious beliefs were not a basis for refusing to comply with generally applicable laws -- say, ones banning drug use. A year earlier, four conservative justices signaled that they were ready to undo the decision and expand religious rights. Now they appeared to have the votes.
But Alito's effort failed. The court settled on a unanimous bottom line, requiring the city to do business with the agency but skirting bigger questions and dividing on the reasoning. Alito wrote a furious 77-page concurrence. 'The court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state,' he wrote.
Barrett countered in just three paragraphs, explaining that she was skeptical of the precedent but wanted to know what could replace it. Others inside and outside the court took notice: She was willing to confound expectations.
An independent streak
To many Americans, the conservative supermajority can look like a unified front reshaping the law through blunt force. Internally, the coalition is more fractured -- six people debating how quickly to move, how far to go and whether public perception matters.
Barrett has favored a more deliberate approach than some of her colleagues. In classroom lectures, she used to say that the country had bound itself to the Constitution the way Odysseus had tied himself to the mast of his ship, to resist whatever political sirens swam up.
'She wants to be seen as apolitical,' said Sherif Girgis, a Notre Dame faculty member. He argued that she was sending a message in the neutral-sounding lines of her opinions: 'The method made me do it, the theory made me do it, not my policy preferences.'
Although Scalia, her mentor, is remembered as a leader of the legal right, he also surprised the public at times. He famously signed onto an opinion that said burning the American flag was protected by the Constitution.
'Justice Scalia used to say, and I wholeheartedly agree, that if you find yourself liking the results of every decision that you make, you're in the wrong job,' Barrett said in 2024. 'You should sometimes be reaching results that you really dislike because it's not your job to just be deciding cases in the way that you'd like them to be seen.'
As a junior justice, she is rarely assigned high-profile opinions. But she has defined herself through her concurrences, particularly ones that argue the other conservatives are going off track. Several times, she has told Justice Clarence Thomas that he leans too heavily on history in making decisions, including last year, when the court rejected a lawyer's attempt to trademark the phrase 'Trump Too Small.'
Although Barrett agreed with the outcome, she wrote that Thomas' reasoning was faulty, in part because 'the historical record does not alone suffice' as a basis for the decision. She was drawing a line on how far originalism, the dominant method of interpretation on the legal right, could go.
The differences between Barrett and Alito are deeper, say people who have worked with them, as well as outsiders who see them as foils in a debate over how to interpret and shape the law.
Alito, 75, is in a hurry to take advantage of the conservative dominance on the court, barely disguising his annoyance at times when the other conservatives don't go along with him. Barrett, who is likely to have a much longer future at the court, measures every move. 'We can see from her opinions that she's a careful, precise thinker, and she's been thrust into this very volatile environment,' said Ed Whelan, a conservative legal commentator.
In Barrett's first weeks on the court, soon after arguments in the foster care case, the court heard the third major Republican challenge to Obama's health care law. Alito voted to overturn it. Barrett and others took the position that the suit was invalid because the plaintiffs lacked standing. As his colleagues were declining to remedy what Alito saw as an egregious problem, he once again wrote a blistering critique. In a patent case, he and Barrett wrote dueling dissents, both claiming that Scalia would have favored their positions.
That term, he was pushing to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the case that would eventually overturn the federal right to abortion. Barrett initially voted with him, but voiced concerns about taking on such a big issue so soon after her arrival at the court, then switched to a no, according to two people familiar with the process. Alito and three other male justices, the minimum to accept a case, greenlighted it and bet correctly that she would vote with them on the ultimate decision, upending a right that had stood for a half-century.
Alito's criticisms have been amplified by outsiders on the right who accuse Barrett of being conflict-shy -- a 'trimmer' who goes partway, in that universe's parlance. Some fear she is a 'drifter' like Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and David Souter, who were appointed by Republican presidents but moved left. (Justices on the ideological move have tended to come from outside Washington.) She holds conservative principles but is reluctant to act on them, critics charge. In a politically fraught case from Idaho last year, she spoke for the two other swing justices, Roberts and Kavanaugh, in dismissing the case and temporarily allowing emergency abortions. Alito wrote that her reasoning was 'patently unsound.'
After Barrett's second term, her agreement on outcomes with Alito slid from 80% to 62%, according to the analysis prepared for the Times, by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, both of Washington University in St. Louis, and Michael J. Nelson, of Penn State. At the same time, Barrett was forging bonds with Sotomayor and Kagan. For them, nearly all roads to victory run through the justice from South Bend, Indiana.
From the beginning, Sotomayor has treated her warmly, offering a congratulatory call after her confirmation, the first from the court; Halloween candy for her children; and a gift for her daughter's 18th birthday, according to Barrett's speeches. The new justice's first-ever dissent was with two of the liberals, and she has described how happy she was to speak for the group. In April at the court, Barrett and Sotomayor, along with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, helped lead a celebration of two federal judges' civil rights work.
Initially, the mother of seven appeared to have little in common with Kagan, who had cracked senators up at her confirmation hearing with a joke about spending Christmas at a Chinese restaurant. Some conservatives who have worked at the court are wary of Kagan, because of her record of crafting compromises and narrowing decisions with which she disagrees, and her practice of gathering internal intelligence about the views of her colleagues to see where decisions are going.
Kagan, though, is the only other academic on the court. She also votes with conservatives more than Sotomayor. When Barrett wrote her critique of Thomas' approach in the 'Trump Too Small' case -- which amounted to a declaration that some versions of originalism went too far -- Kagan signed on.
But few of Barrett's alliances with liberals have come in marquee cases. 'People are treating her as a cipher and projecting liberal desires on her, like we want her to be like John Paul Stevens or Souter,' said Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor.
'I'm waiting for a case in which her break with some of the other conservatives really makes a difference,' said Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell University.
The glare of the spotlight
This spring, days after the menacing pizza deliveries to Barrett's relatives, authorities received a threat to her sister, who lives in South Carolina.
'I've constructed a pipe bomb which I recently placed in Amy Coney Barrett's sister's mailbox at her home,' the note said, according to a police report. The bomb was made of 'a 1x8-inch threaded galvanized pipe, end caps, a kitchen timer, some wires, metal clips and homemade black powder,' the note said, adding, 'Free Palestine!'
The mailbox was empty, but the incidents caused 'terror and grief' throughout the family, Bruce Nolan, an uncle, said in an interview.
Barrett has said she was trained by her father to control her emotions, and in public, she presents a picture of judicial poise. But friends say that while she embraces the intellectual parts of the job, the degree to which her life has been turned upside down has stunned her. She wasn't really fully prepared for 'the shift into being a public figure,' she said in 2022.
In the 1990s, Barrett worked as a clerk for an institution that required far less security, where a chief justice would hop into clerks' cars for spontaneous tennis matches on public courts. In recent years, those on the bench have drawn protests at their homes and faced an assassination attempt and threats. A convicted Jan. 6 rioter said last year that he wanted to slit Barrett from 'ear to ear.' She limits excursions, friends say, because she's been screamed at in public.
In an interview, Davis said that because of his friendship with Gorsuch, he was tempering his comments about Barrett. 'Out of respect for him I toned down my rhetoric,' he said, adding that he was sorry for mentioning her children.
Amid the hostility, Barrett plans to speak directly to the public, through a book to be published in September. According to several people who have read drafts of the book, 'Listening to the Law,' she is trying to bring the public inside the court, show how it works and how she decides cases.
In major ones, Barrett has been in the majority more than any of her colleagues, a measure of her rising influence. Last month she effectively decided a case by recusing herself. The court was weighing whether government money could fund the nation's first religious charter school. Barrett stepped aside, presumably because a friend was an adviser to the school. The court deadlocked 4-4 in what could have been a precedent-setting case, and some conservative activists pounced on Barrett for walking away.
There will be even more focus on her in coming months as she and her colleagues deal with a conveyor belt of cases involving much of the president's agenda.
So far, Barrett's record on Trump-related votes is short but suggestive. Usually, justices show what scholars call 'appointment bias,' leaning slightly in favor of the presidents who appointed them.
She has gone in the other direction. Because emergency orders are tentative, and not every vote is disclosed, the evidence is limited. But she is the Republican appointee who appears to have voted least often for Trump's position, based on three cases decided last year stemming from his attempts to subvert the 2020 election, as well as 14 emergency applications since then arising from his sentencing in New York and recent blitz of executive orders.
Now, one group of cases will determine whether and how Trump's deportations can proceed. Another concerns whether lower-court judges can issue nationwide injunctions, which some have used to block or delay Trump's actions. Questions about the legality of Trump's tariff hikes, his strike at Harvard, the firing of federal workers, along with other actions by the Department of Government Efficiency, and his attempt to ban transgender people from the military have been or soon will be subject to the justices' scrutiny.
In explaining how she reaches her decisions, Barrett has said that she is open to persuasion, particularly in response to a strong oral argument. 'I have changed my mind,' she said last year, 'even at the Supreme Court.'
About the Data:
The data in this article come from an analysis prepared for the Times by Lee Epstein and Andrew D. Martin, both of Washington University in St. Louis, and Michael J. Nelson, of Penn State. The researchers used the Supreme Court Database, which contains information about every Supreme Court case since 1791. More information on how decisions are coded 'liberal' or 'conservative' can be found on the database website.
This article originally appeared in

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fox News

31 minutes ago

• Fox News

FBI increases surveillance of Iran-backed operatives in US: source

The FBI is increasing its monitoring of Iran-backed operatives in the U.S. as President Donald Trump weighs involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, a senior law enforcement source confirmed to Fox News Friday. The White House said Thursday Trump will make a decision on U.S. involvement in the conflict within two weeks. The monitoring reportedly includes surveillance of possible sleeper cells linked to the Tehran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah, according to CBS News. The Lebanon-based terror group also got a clear warning from Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz not to join the conflict. The decision to increase monitoring comes just days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Iran was plotting to assassinate Trump because the regime saw him as a threat to its nuclear program. "They want to kill him. He's enemy No. 1. He's a decisive leader. He never took the path that others took to try to bargain with them in a way that is weak, giving them basically a pathway to enrich uranium, which means a pathway to the bomb, padding it with billions and billions of dollars," the prime minister told Fox News' Bret Baier during a Sunday edition of "Special Report." While Trump has called for an "unconditional surrender," he has yet to decide whether to involve the U.S. in the conflict. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday he would make a decision within two weeks. Critics from both sides of the aisle have called on the president not to get involved, while others see involvement as a necessity to protect American interests. On Friday, a U.S. official told Fox News the USS Nimitz, which left the South China Sea Monday, would arrive in the Middle East this weekend. The USS Carl Vinson has already been deployed for some time, meaning two U.S. aircraft carriers would be in the Middle East at the same time.

UPI

32 minutes ago

• UPI

U.N. chief says Iran, Israel 'on course to chaos,' urges de-escalation

June 20 (UPI) -- United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Friday urged de-escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran because "we are on course to chaos." The United Nations Security Council met in New York City to discuss the conflict that began one week ago. Iran called for a special session of the 15-member Security Council. Iranian Ambassador Amir Saeid Iravani described the "large-scale, unprovoked military attack" by Israel. Guterres spoke to the UN. delegations from Geneva, Switzerland, where he working with the foreign ministers from Iran, France, Germany, Britain and the European Union on a diplomatic solution to the situation. Guterres said the war is "escalating rapidly with a terrible toll, killing and injuring civilians, devastating homes and civilian infrastructure, attacking nuclear facilities. The expansion of this conflict could ignite a fire that no one can control. We must not let that happen. "There are moments when our choices are defining, when the direction taken will potentially shape our collective future," he said. "The present conflict between Israel and Iran is such a moment. Let us not look back on this moment with regret. Let us act -- responsibly and together -- to pull the region, and our world, back from the brink." Rafael Grossi, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the Internatiomal Atomic Energy Agency, warned that Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites had caused a "sharp degradation" in nuclear safety and security. He spoke from Geneva. The United States has largely stayed out of the conflict. But U.S. President Donald Trump said Thursday he would decide whether to bomb Iran "within two weeks." Trump wants a nuclear deal between the United States and Iran. Before the war began last week, they had met several times to agree on a pact regarding uranium enrichment. "President Trump has been clear in recent days that Iran's leadership must completely abandon its nuclear enrichment program and all aspirations of acquiring a nuclear weapon," acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea said Friday. She described the danger of Iran. "The Iranian government has long posed a constant menace to the peace and security of its neighbors and the entire world, which this council is charged to maintain," she said. "The Iranian government has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction and for 'death to America.' They have launched direct and proxy attacks on Israeli civilians, including most recently on southern Israel's largest hospital, and just recently -- in the last couple hours -- on Haifa. Iran's government has also spread chaos, terror, and suffering throughout the region." She said, "It is not too late for the government of Iran to do the right thing." The United States is a permanent member of the council and can veto any resolution. Russia and China, which also are permanent members, condemned Israel's strikes on Iran. Iraq's Ambassador Abbas Kadhom Obaid Al-Fatlawi agreed with them, saying: "Iraq strongly condemns the unjustified Israeli attacks against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the repeated Israeli violations of the sovereignty of states, especially the violations of Iraqi airspace to launch an aggression against neighboring Iran." Israeli planes have passed over Iraq en route to Iran. Al-Fatlawi said the attacks are blatant violations of the U.N. charter and international law, adding that "we will not allow Iraq to become a battleground for settling regional or international scores." Israel's Ambassador Danny Danon countered: "There is no greater threat to international peace and security than a nuclear Iran." He said Israel has acted "as a last resort" and would not "wait for another threat, rocket, missile, terrorist or atomic bomb." On the other side, the Iranian ambassador said: "The council's failure to act ... would constitute a profound abdication of the council's responsibilities." He said the assault was not accidental and "not collateral damage. They were deliberate war crimes, acts of state terror and an example of barbaric warfare." Iravani noted his nation's nuclear program is peaceful, and he said Israel remains the only country in the Middle East with undeclared nuclear weapons. Iran's military response to being attacked was carried out in accordance with international law, he said. The diplomatic bloc of France, Germany, Britain and European Union officials are engaging Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Geneva, calling it a "window of opportunity" to return to diplomacy. The other permanent Security Council members are Britain and France. British Ambassador Barbara Woodward called it "a dangerous moment for the entire region." She said she hoped for a diplomatic solution and reaffirmed Britain's support for the IAEA and its inspectors, and urged all parties to protect civilians and uphold international humanitarian law. Britain is not participating in Israeli strikes and has deployed assets only as a defensive measure, she said. French Ambassador Jerome Bonnafont also called for restraint and de-escalation. "Civilian lives need to be shielded and there is a need to re-embark on the path of diplomacy," he said. "France solemnly calls on Iran to finally take the opportunity of a negotiated diplomatic solution."

Chicago Tribune

32 minutes ago

• Chicago Tribune

Letters to the Editor: Vote-by-mail's not the reason Republicans are losing elections; chromosomes not a simple solution for trans sports issue

I find it amusing that Kevin Coyne, chair of the DuPage County GOP, has concluded the only reason DuPage Republicans are losing elections is because they don't vote by mail. Like most of the Republicans left in his party, he refuses to admit that his is now a party of insanity. Many Republicans have jumped ship to the Democratic Party, wandered off as independents or become non-voters out of disgust. Some did so during President Trump's first term; still more in his latter. No, it must be that all-powerful vote by mail and not because Trump rejected the outcome of the 2020 elections, incited a violent insurrection on Jan. 6 and then pardoned the participants, hobbled emergency and health agencies like FEMA and the National Weather Service, and gutted the EPA so polluters are fully free to poison our air and water for greater profits. It can't possibly be because the president rolled back decades of progress for civil and human rights, shut down the heinous 'Sesame Street' or diverted money from seniors' Meals on Wheels so millionaires can be a given a greater tax break. He's made it so it's now OK to threaten universities and oppose law firms you don't like, to accept foreign gifts for personal favor and to sell U.S. citizenship, for which many veterans gave their lives, for the bargain price of $5 million. No, Republicans losing elections must be the result of something else. So, yes, Kevin, please sign your entire party up for vote-by-mail. It's a great plan — for the rest of us, who live in the world of the sane.I am writing in response to the letter, 'Chromosomes should dictate who competes against who,' which ran in the June 15 edition of the Naperville Sun. The idea that 'chromosomes should dictate who competes against who' in sports competitions is overly simplistic and does not reflect the reality of genetic diversity in human beings. Chromosomally, sex is not easily defined. There are many chromosomal variations other than XX or XY, including XXX, XYY and XXX, and many more. What about women who have Turner syndrome or only have one X chromosome or men with Klinefelter syndrome with an XXY karyotype? Should we bar them from sports too? The vast majority of people have not had their own genome sequenced. The original letter writer herself may even have a chromosomal variation other than XX and may never know it. There is no one way for women's bodies, and genes, to be. Trans people belong in sports and denying them the right to participate based on their chromosomes is up in Naperville deeply influenced my path. The opportunities I had at Naperville School District 203 ignited my passions for science and service. Later, federal research experiences shaped my future. When I approached graduation from Lake Forest College, I felt lost. How could I blend my passions into a career? I found the answer during a research internship at Rush University on a project funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease. Today, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I am a doctoral candidate in epidemiology, the field that works to understand and reduce disease. My research and training are largely supported by the National Cancer Institute. Epidemiologists help fight cancer by collecting and analyzing data on cancer cases and deaths. For example, epidemiology research supports the 2022-27 Illinois Cancer Control Plan to reduce cancer, promote prevention and improve care. My research explores why people get colorectal cancer at different rates. While overall rates have decreased since the 2010s, cases in people under 50 have increased by 44% in Illinois over the past two decades. At all ages, Black Illinoisans face the highest rates. Despite great strides, we have a long way to go in the fight to end cancer. But I fear for the future of this fight. This year, federally mandated cuts to the National Institutes of Health's budget will eliminate essential resources like staff, buildings and utilities. Public universities in Illinois are facing a $71.5 million loss in funding, devastating science infrastructure and destroying jobs. Additionally, Illinois universities have had millions in already-awarded grants canceled (including more than $1 million at Rush). These cuts pause essential research, threaten economic growth and undermine the training of the next generation of scientists. Dwindling research funds are not the only threat. In March, the Centers for Disease Control blocked $449 million awarded to the Illinois Department of Public Health. With these cuts, we lose support to fight chronic diseases, like cancer, and infectious disease, like the flu and COVID-19. This is not an issue of political affiliation. Sweeping cuts threaten the research and resources needed to fight disease, leaving everyone's health at stake. Please contact your local, state and federal elected officials and tell them you oppose cuts to science and public health funding. You can also express support by signing the Citizens for Science Policy pledge at was the recent U.S. Army's 250th anniversary overlooked? There was lots of coverage and criticism of the June 14 parade but not much in the way of gratitude for the U.S. Army. Although there's a lot of political turmoil right now, let us never, ever forget that freedom is not free. I'm not going to talk about political views but just be sure to thank all of our military folks and especially the U.S. Army, whose soldiers have protected our freedoms for 250 years! Maybe what was overlooked is that our military are the ones who really guard the gates of freedom around the world for all of us. They are the ones who enable the rights we all enjoy, especially the right to free speech, and have been doing so from 1775 to 2025. Whatever our political views may be, I think we should be both mindful of and thankful for the Army's faithful service to our country. They did a great job in the parade and made us proud. May God continue to bless our country and all of our military.