Latest news with #Republican-appointed
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Amy Coney Barrett Makes Unexpected Move in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a major setback for the transgender community. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who fully joined the majority in its 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, wrote a separate concurring opinion suggesting the ruling does not go far enough. In the opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Barrett argued that laws classifying people based on transgender status do not trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Legal experts say that if a majority of the court adopts her reasoning for that argument, it could further erode transgender rights. Barrett's opinion may come as a surprise to those who have hailed her as a centrist. Appointed to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020, she has routinely voted with her conservative colleagues, including in the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The New York Times recently said Barrett "is showing signs of leftward drift," and noted that she is the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority of decisions that reach a liberal outcome. And her siding with liberal justices and ruling against the Trump administration in some recent cases has led to anger from Trump supporters, with some accusing her of being "a radical liberal." But some experts say it's a mistake to believe she is shifting to the left. The court's majority opinion upheld Tennessee's ban on the grounds that the law's restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex. But Chief Justice John Roberts' 24-page majority opinion did not decide whether transgender status is a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause. Barrett argued in her concurring opinion that transgender status does not constitute a "suspect class" entitled to stronger legal protections. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which he also said he does not believe transgender status qualifies as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Barrett argued that the test to determine whether members of a group is a suspect class is "strict," including considering whether members of the group exhibit "immutable or distinguishing characteristics," whether the group has historically been subject to discrimination and whether it is "a minority or politically powerless." "Transgender status is not marked by the same sort of "'obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics'" as race or sex," she wrote. "The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages—some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals 'detransition' later in life—in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex." She wrote that "a history of private discrimination" against transgender people is not enough because what is relevant is a history of "de jure" discrimination, that is, discrimination enforced by law or official policy. In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that transgender people "have long been subject to discrimination in health care, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence." She added that they have also "been subject to a lengthy history of de jure discrimination in the form of cross-dressing bans, police brutality, and anti-sodomy laws." Barrett also argued that recognizing transgender people as a suspect class "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion." It also implicates "several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains." Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal analyst and professor at George Washington University's law school, told Newsweek: "I honestly do not believe that Justice Barrett is influenced by public criticism. As a lawyer, academic, and jurist, she has always spoken clearly in her own voice. Her jurisprudential foundations run very deep after years of thinking and writing about the law. Most justices are far more concerned about their legacy than their popularity in rendering opinions." Turley also wrote on X: "The transgender community can scratch off Barrett on their possible allies in some of the pending cases in lower courts." MSNBC legal commentator Jordan Rubin wrote in a blog post: "While the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn't the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward." Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern said: "This is a really atrocious concurrence. It's totally gratuitous, and I struggle to understand why she wrote it except to further prevent transgender people in this country from ever winning in a court." Stern added that Barrett, along with Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito, "wanted to say, clearly, that the Constitution does not protect transgender people from overt, invidious discrimination. They didn't win today. But they may win in the next case." The decision in United States v. Skrmetti is one of the most significant rulings about transgender people to come from the Supreme Court. While the court did not rule on whether laws that classify on the basis of transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, that could be a question that the court addresses in the future—and Barrett has made clear in her concurring opinion how she would vote. Related Articles Will Donald Trump Get to Pick New Supreme Court Justices?Why Amy Coney Barrett May Have Sat Out Huge Supreme Court CaseFive Supreme Court Justices Sit Out Case in Rare MoveThe 1600: Are We Headed for the Worst of Tariff Worlds? 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Newsweek
a day ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Amy Coney Barrett Makes Unexpected Move in Supreme Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a major setback for the transgender community. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who fully joined the majority in its 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, wrote a separate concurring opinion suggesting the ruling does not go far enough. In the opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Barrett argued that laws classifying people based on transgender status do not trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Legal experts say that if a majority of the court adopts her reasoning for that argument, it could further erode transgender rights. Amy Coney Barrett meets with U.S. Sen. James Lankford on October 21, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Amy Coney Barrett meets with U.S. Sen. James Lankford on October 21, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Sarah Silbiger/Pool-Getty Images Why It Matters Barrett's opinion may come as a surprise to those who have hailed her as a centrist. Appointed to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020, she has routinely voted with her conservative colleagues, including in the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The New York Times recently said Barrett "is showing signs of leftward drift," and noted that she is the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority of decisions that reach a liberal outcome. And her siding with liberal justices and ruling against the Trump administration in some recent cases has led to anger from Trump supporters, with some accusing her of being "a radical liberal." But some experts say it's a mistake to believe she is shifting to the left. What To Know The court's majority opinion upheld Tennessee's ban on the grounds that the law's restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex. But Chief Justice John Roberts' 24-page majority opinion did not decide whether transgender status is a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause. Barrett argued in her concurring opinion that transgender status does not constitute a "suspect class" entitled to stronger legal protections. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which he also said he does not believe transgender status qualifies as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Barrett argued that the test to determine whether members of a group is a suspect class is "strict," including considering whether members of the group exhibit "immutable or distinguishing characteristics," whether the group has historically been subject to discrimination and whether it is "a minority or politically powerless." "Transgender status is not marked by the same sort of "'obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics'" as race or sex," she wrote. "The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages—some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals 'detransition' later in life—in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex." She wrote that "a history of private discrimination" against transgender people is not enough because what is relevant is a history of "de jure" discrimination, that is, discrimination enforced by law or official policy. In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that transgender people "have long been subject to discrimination in health care, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence." She added that they have also "been subject to a lengthy history of de jure discrimination in the form of cross-dressing bans, police brutality, and anti-sodomy laws." Barrett also argued that recognizing transgender people as a suspect class "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion." It also implicates "several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains." What People Are Saying Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal analyst and professor at George Washington University's law school, told Newsweek: "I honestly do not believe that Justice Barrett is influenced by public criticism. As a lawyer, academic, and jurist, she has always spoken clearly in her own voice. Her jurisprudential foundations run very deep after years of thinking and writing about the law. Most justices are far more concerned about their legacy than their popularity in rendering opinions." Turley also wrote on X: "The transgender community can scratch off Barrett on their possible allies in some of the pending cases in lower courts." MSNBC legal commentator Jordan Rubin wrote in a blog post: "While the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn't the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward." Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern said: "This is a really atrocious concurrence. It's totally gratuitous, and I struggle to understand why she wrote it except to further prevent transgender people in this country from ever winning in a court." Stern added that Barrett, along with Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito, "wanted to say, clearly, that the Constitution does not protect transgender people from overt, invidious discrimination. They didn't win today. But they may win in the next case." What's Next The decision in United States v. Skrmetti is one of the most significant rulings about transgender people to come from the Supreme Court. While the court did not rule on whether laws that classify on the basis of transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, that could be a question that the court addresses in the future—and Barrett has made clear in her concurring opinion how she would vote.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court upholds Tennessee's youth transgender care ban
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines that stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country. Rejecting a challenge mounted by the Biden administration, the high court ruled Tennessee's law does not amount to sex discrimination that requires a higher level of constitutional scrutiny, removing a key line of attack that LGBTQ rights advocates have used to try to topple similar laws. 'Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the court's six Republican-appointed justices. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices dissented, saying they would've held the law to heightened scrutiny. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the more exacting standard raises questions about whether Tennessee's law would survive. She read her dissent aloud from the bench, which the justices reserve for emphasizing their strong disagreements with a case. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Tennessee's law, S.B. 1, prohibits health care providers from administering puberty blockers or hormone therapy to transgender minors when the medications are prescribed to help them transition. The law, which Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) signed in 2023, also bans gender-transition surgeries for minors, though that provision was not at issue before the high court. Providers who violate the law can face $25,000 civil fines for violations. Three Tennessee families and a doctor originally sued, and the Biden administration joined them, asserting the law discriminated based on sex in violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. The high court rejected that notion, instead siding with Tennessee. The state insisted the law distinguishes based on a treatment's medical purpose, not sex, and the court should defer to the Legislature's judgment about regulating medicine for children. 'This case carries a simple lesson: In politically contentious debates over matters shrouded in scientific uncertainty, courts should not assume that self-described experts are correct,' Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court's leading conservatives, wrote in a separate, concurring opinion. Tennessee's Republican Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti celebrated the court's ruling Wednesday, saying voters' 'common sense' prevailed over 'judicial activism.' 'A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand,' Skrmetti wrote in a statement following the ruling. 'The rapid and unexplained rise in the number of kids seeking these life-altering interventions, despite the lack of supporting evidence, calls for careful scrutiny from our elected leaders,' he continued later. 'This victory transcends politics. It's about real Tennessee kids facing real struggles. Families across our state and our nation deserve solutions based on science, not ideology.' He added, 'Today's landmark decision recognizes that the Constitution lets us fulfill society's highest calling—protecting our kids.' Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, said Tuesday's ruling 'is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution.' 'Though this is a painful setback, it does not mean that transgender people and our allies are left with no options to defend our freedom, our health care, or our lives,' said Strangio, who, during oral arguments in December, became the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court. 'The Court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful. We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve.' The Biden administration was backed by various medical organizations and LGBTQ rights groups, Democratic attorneys general from 19 states and Washington, D.C., actor Elliot Page, roughly 160 Democratic members of Congress and the American Bar Association. Tennessee's defense was supported by 24 Republican state attorneys general, various Republican governors, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a group of 'detransitioners' — individuals who once, but no longer, identified as transgender — and conservative organizations like Advancing American Freedom, founded by former Vice President Mike Pence. Trump's Justice Department abandoned the Biden administration's challenge to the state's law upon taking office. But the new administration urged the Supreme Court to still decide the case, warning the weighty issue would otherwise quickly return to the justices. Wednesday's decision comes as the White House seeks to restrict access to gender-affirming treatments more broadly. Trump, who signed an executive order in February to end federal support for transition-related care for minors, has also called for federal legislation to that effect, instructing Congress at a joint address in March to pass a bill 'permanently banning and criminalizing sex changes on children and forever ending the lie that any child is trapped in the wrong body.' In May, the Department of Health and Human Services broke with major professional medical organizations, which have said gender-affirming care for trans youths and adults is medically necessary, in an unsigned report that declared such interventions lack scientific evidence. Updated at 11:38 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
5 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
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
Newsweek
10-06-2025
- Health
- Newsweek
GOP Candidate Says Number of Women on Birth Control 'Concerning'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A Minnesota GOP Senate candidate has said that he finds the number of women on birth control "concerning" because the pills not only change female hormones but also change the kind of men women are attracted to. Adam Schwarze told Heartland Signal, a local radio show reporting predominantly in the Midwest, that birth control was making women more attracted to "beta" men as opposed to "alpha cavemen." Newsweek has contacted Schwarze via social media for comment. Why It Matters Access to birth control and reproductive rights has come into the spotlight since President Donald Trump started his second term as president, and requests for contraceptives, including long-term birth control and "morning after" pills and abortion pills, soared after his election victory. After Roe v Wade was overturned by Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, taking the constitutional right to abortion away from American women, concerns about what the Trump administration's plans are for reproductive rights have been escalating. While the Republican base in America is comprised of a large proportion of religious groups, particularly evangelical Christians and Catholics, who oppose birth control, a 2024 Navigator Research survey found that 74 percent of Americans believed birth control should be easier to access. File photo: birth control pills. File photo: birth control pills. Serge Pouzet/Sipa via AP What To Know Schwarze also told Heartland Signal that because of the influence birth control pills are having on women and their attractions, U.S. society as a whole is becoming more "pacified." "It's actually kind of concerning because it's changing our culture and values because of birth control," he said, adding it was "fascinating but also scary." Saying that a lot of women are now using birth control, he added: "We are changing our society away from men who are alphas, providers, protectors, doers, builders for these effeminate girly boys." According to research by KFF last year, 82 percent of American women of reproductive age reported having used some form of contraception in the past 12 months. There are some studies that have indicated the birth control pill, i.e. an oral contraceptive, could influence what features women are attracted to in men, with one 2013 study finding that "initiation of pill use significantly decreased women's preferences for male facial masculinity." A 2011 study also investigated the relationship outcomes of women using the pill but stated that "we know neither whether these laboratory-measured effects are sufficient to exert real-world consequences, nor what these consequences would be." The reasons behind possible changes to attraction have been attributed to female hormone levels, however there is still limited research on the subject and more rigorous studies are needed in order to determine whether birth control changes what kind of men women are attracted to. What People Are Saying Minnesota GOP Senate candidate Adam Schwarze said during a radio interview with Heartland Signal: "There is a study that's getting popularity and more widely known that women on birth control, it actually changes your hormones and your attractions, so women who are on birth control, and this is more Democrats who are on birth control than conservatives because of some religious reasons, but it actually changes who you are attracted to and there's multiple reports on this, ... of girls who leave birth control when they want to start families or just decide to do a different method of pregnancy prevention, that they leave their partners because they are not attracted to them because birth control makes you attracted to betas." What Happens Next The Trump administration has passed an executive order to prevent federal funding of elective abortion, alongside ending "the forced use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion," however, it is not yet clear if the administration plans to alter women's access to birth control.
