The Jurisprudence of Justice Amy Coney Barrett

George v. McDonough

Question Presented: When the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denies a veteran's claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that the veteran may invoke to challenge VA's decision?

Holding: The invalidation of a VA regulation after a veteran's benefts decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief based on clear and unmistakable error.

ZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.

Question Presented: Whether private foreign arbitration panels qualify as "foreign or international tribunals" under §1782.

Holding: Only governmental or intergovernmental bodies qualify; private arbitration panels do not.

Denezpi v. United States

Question Presented: Is the Court of Indian Offenses of Ute Mountain Ute Agency a federal agency such that Merle Denezpi's conviction in that court barred his subsequent prosecution in a United States District Court for a crime arising out of the same incident?

Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them.

Patel v. Garland

Question Presented: First, whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preserves the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief. Second, whether 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii), which renders a noncitizen inadmissible for "falsely represent[ing]" oneself to be a U.S. citizen for a government benefit, applies to immaterial misrepresentations.

Holding: Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under § 1255 and the other provisions enumerated in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

Boechler v. Commissioner

Question Presented: Whether the time limit in Section 6330(d)(1) is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim processing rule subject to equitable tolling.

Holding: The deadline is non-jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling.

Babcock v. Kijakazi

Question Presented: Dual-status military technicians in the National Guard are members of the National Guard. They serve in uniform, observe military protocol, are required to maintain a military grade appropriate for their role, and are available for active deployment with their unit. A provision of the Social Security Act exempts payments from adverse treatment if they are "a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service." 42 U.S.C.§ 415(a)(7)(A)(III). The question presented, which has divided five Courts of Appeals, is: Is a civil-service pension payment based on dual-status military technician service to the National Guard a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service?

Holding: Civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dualstatus military technician are not payments based on “service as a member of a uniformed service” under 42 U. S. C. § 415(a)(7)(A)(III).

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

Question Presented: Whether New York's "proper cause" requirement for public carry violates the Second Amendment.

Holding: New York's proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary selfdefense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.

Barrett's View: Justice Barrett joined the Court's opinion in full and wrote separately "to highlight two methodogical points that the Court does not resolve," first, the extent to which post-ratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution, and second, whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratifed in 1868 or when the Bill of Rights was ratifed in 1791.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Question Presented: Whether the FAA preempts California's rule barring division of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) actions into individual and representative claims.

Holding: The FAA preempts a rule allowing aggrieved employees to seek monetary awards on a representative basis on behalf of all employees insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.

Barrett's View: Justice Barrett concurred only in part because, in her view, all but Part III of the Court's opinion was superfluous to the end result.

Wooden v. United States

Question Presented: Whether multiple offenses committed during a single criminal episode occur on different "occasions" under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Holding: Wooden's ten burglary offenses arising from a single criminal episode did not occur on different “occasions” and thus count as only one prior conviction for purposes of the ACCA.

Barrett's View: In Justice Barrett's view, the Court glossed the statute by leaning on weak evidence of Congress' impetus for amending the statute, followed by still weaker evidence that Congress embraced the reasoning of a brief fled by the Solicitor General. She would impute to Congress only what can fairly be imputed to it: the words of the statute.

United States v. Tsarnaev

Question Presented: Whether the First Circuit erred in vacating Tsarnaev's death sentence based on voir dire and evidentiary rulings.

Holding: The death sentence was reinstated; the district court did not err.

Barrett's View: Justice Barrett wrote separately to note her skepticism that courts of appeals possess "supervisory power" over district courts. In her view, Article III's grant of the "judicial power" allows imbues courts with authority to regulate their own proceedings, but she is skeptical that power allows courts of appeals to adopt a blanket rule that all district courts must follow in its jurisdiction on pain of reversal.