New Analysis Finds Barrett Sides Against Consumers, Immigrants, Workers, and More
Government Watchdog’s Analysis Shows Trump’s Nominee to the Supreme Court Sides with Corporations over Consumers, Workers, and Immigrants
WASHINGTON, D.C. – With Amy Coney Barrett’s Senate confirmation hearings now underway, government watchdog Accountable.US released a new analysis of hundreds of cases on which President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court weighed in as a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In line with previously released findings showing her siding with corporations 76% of the time in precedent-setting appellate cases, the watchdog’s expanded findings show Barrett’s proclivity for siding against consumers, workers, and immigrants while siding with policing interests and defendants in discrimination cases.
“Rather than focusing on the ongoing pandemic and helping small businesses on the brink of closing and families struggling to make ends meet, the Senate is instead rushing to confirm Trump’s Supreme Court nominee in the closing days of a presidential election,” said Kyle Herrig, president of government watchdog Accountable.US. “What is equally troubling is that they are doing this for a nominee that we still know so little about. Throughout her career — in case after case — Amy Coney Barrett showed her true stripes, ruling against consumers, workers, immigrants, and those alleging discrimination. What we are slowly learning about Barrett’s record shows she will take the nation backward on key issues important to small businesses and workers who continue to struggle during the ongoing public health and economic crises.”
- CONSUMERS: Amy Coney Barrett sided against consumers in 78% of cases she saw while serving on the 7th Circuit.
- IMMIGRATION: She ruled against immigrants 88% of the time while serving on the 7th Circuit.
- POLICING: She sided with policing interests 86% of the time when law enforcement actions were at issue in the 7th Circuit.
- WORKERS: She sided with workers in just 8% of cases during her tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
- DISCRIMINATION: She sided with entities accused of discrimination 85% of the time during her tenure on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Additionally, Accountable.US’s analysis pointed to a handful of particularly egregious examples of Barrett’s judgment that threatened the rights and safety of people and families, including the following:
- In one instance, Barrett agreed with a lower court opinion dismissing a case in which a woman had been fired after requested leave from her employer to go see a doctor for her strep throat. Barrett called the request for leave “not a statutorily protected activity.”
- In an opinion she authored and in which her colleagues dissenting from her opinion said would pave the way for abusive debt collection practices, Barrett sided with a debt collector who failed to inform a woman of her rights as required by law, causing her to supposedly forfeit those rights under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
- And in another instance concerning immigrants receiving public assistance, Barrett dissented from her judicial colleagues’ opinion and called the Trump administration’s definition of “public charge” reasonable.
Read the full report here.
Earlier today, Accountable.US sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee urging members to review the detailed analysis of Barrett’s record of consistently siding with corporations over consumers, workers, and immigrants and urging a delay to the confirmation hearing until her full record is made public.