Amy Coney Barrett, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Credit: © Anna Moneymaker, Getty Images

On October 26, the American jurist (legal scholar) Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Barrett became the 115th justice and only the fifth woman to be appointed to the nation’s highest court. In September, President Donald J. Trump nominated her to fill a vacancy on the court created by the death of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg eight days earlier.

Barrett’s confirmation was contentious, in part because of the upcoming presidential election, scheduled for November 3. The confirmation process began only six weeks before Election Day, and Democrats argued that the seat should not be filled until after Americans cast their votes. On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama had nominated Merrick Garland to the court. The Republican-controlled Senate at the time had refused to consider the nomination, arguing then that it was too close to the 2016 election, some 7 1/2 months away, to consider Garland. Many of the same Republicans voted to confirm Barrett in 2020.

Democrats expressed their opposition through voting—not a single Democratic senator supported Barrett’s confirmation. Republicans celebrated her nomination, with only Senator Susan Collins of Maine voting against it. Barrett’s confirmation gave conservatives a firm 6-3 majority on the court.

Court observers have described Barrett as a conservative judge. She has consistently ruled conservatively on such issues as abortion rights, gun control, and immigration. She has criticized the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling that upheld key provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Barrett describes herself as an originalist, meaning that she believes the Constitution of the United States should be interpreted as it was originally meant to be understood.

Amy Vivian Coney was born on Jan. 28, 1972, in New Orleans, Louisiana. She was raised in Metairie, a suburb of New Orleans. She received a bachelor’s degree from Rhodes College in 1994 and a J.D. degree from the University of Notre Dame in 1997. After graduating, she served as a law clerk for Laurence H. Silberman, a judge serving on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. She then served as law clerk for the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. She married Jesse Barrett in 1999.

Also in 1999, Amy Coney Barrett began working as an associate for private practice law firms in Washington, D.C. She became an adjunct faculty member and fellow in law at the George Washington University Law School in 2001. In 2002, Barrett joined the faculty of the University of Notre Dame as a law professor. President Trump nominated her to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is a federal court that makes legal judgments for the U.S. states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

April 30, 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-to-2 decision, upheld a 2011 rule by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would limit certain kinds of polluting air emissions that cross state lines. The ruling means that such industries as coal-fired electric power plants will likely be forced to switch to cleaner-burning fuels, such as natural gas.

Scientists have long known that wind, under certain circumstances, carries sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide from power plants for long distances. These pollutants react with other substances to form smog and soot that can cause respiratory illnesses and other disease. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged the complexity of the problem before the EPA. “In crafting a solution to the problem of interstate air pollution, regulators [that is, the EPA] must account for the vagaries of the wind,” she noted. “Most upwind states contribute to pollution to multiple downwind states in varying amounts.”

A tug of war between the EPA and smokestack industries over drifting air pollution has been going on for decades. In 2002, the administration of then-President George W. Bush instructed the EPA to adopt new rules overturning a provision of the Clean Air Act of 1970 that required companies to adopt the best available pollution controls when major sources of pollution–such as coal-fired electric plants and refineries–are upgraded or enlarged. The provision was reinstated by the administration of President Barack Obama. Texas and 13 other states and power companies filed a lawsuit challenging its reinstatement, and a federal appeals court ruled in their favor in 2012.

Most coal mined in the United States is used to fuel electric power plants. Domestic coal is also shipped to China, where it contributes to air pollution that drifts across the Pacific to North America. (c) Grapes/Michaud, Photo Researchers.

Legal experts characterize yesterday’s court decision as an important victory for President Obama in his effort to reduce power plant pollution in 27 Midwestern and Appalachian states. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy called the ruling “a resounding victory for public health and a key component of EPA’s efforts to make sure all Americans have clean air to breathe.”

Two of the court’s more conservative justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented. Justice Samuel Alito recused himself from the consideration of the case.

Additional World Book articles:

• Acid rain
• Environmental pollution 2002 (a Back in Time article)
• Environmental pollution 2011 (a Back in Time article)

June 24, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four ruling, today struck down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 4 of the act provided a formula for determining which states must submit any changes to existing voting laws to the Justice Department or to a federal court for approval. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Section 4 is unconstitutional because the standards by which states are judged are “based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. . . . Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 protects the voting rights of African Americans and members of other minority groups in the United States. (National Archives)

The Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the dissent: “Congress’s decision to renew the act and keep the coverage formula was an altogether rational means to serve the end of achieving what was once the subject of a dream: the equal citizenship stature of all in our polity, a voice to every voter in our democracy undiluted by race.”

Congress last renewed the law in 2006. In the majority opinion, Roberts noted that Congress remains free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights are at risk, but must base that oversight on contemporary data. Political experts suggest that given the current partisan deadlock in Congress, the imposition of new oversight is highly unlikely.

Additional World Book articles:

• Judicial review
• Poll tax
• Congress of the United States 1965 (a Back in Time article)