The Opinions of Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Significant Seventh Circuit Opinions

Notable opinions authored by Judge Barrett during her tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2017–2020).

  1. Doe v. Purdue University

    Majority Opinion Title IX / Due Process 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019)

    Question Presented: Whether a male student stated plausible claims that Purdue University violated his procedural due process rights and discriminated against him on the basis of sex under Title IX in its handling of a sexual assault complaint.

    Holding: The student stated plausible claims for both due process and Title IX violations. The district court's dismissal was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

    Barrett's View: Judge Barrett found that the university's alleged disciplinary process was fundamentally unfair, falling "short of what even a high school must provide to a student facing a days-long suspension." The Court thus reversed the distrct court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit.

  2. Kanter v. Barr

    Dissent Second Amendment 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019)

    Question Presented: Whether the federal and state prohibitions on firearm possession by felons violated the Second Amendment as applied to a nonviolent offender convicted of mail fraud.

    Holding: The majority upheld the prohibitions, finding they passed intermediate scrutiny. Judge Barrett dissented.

    Barrett's View: In a 37-page dissent, Judge Barrett argued that courts should assess gun restrictions by looking to "history and tradition"—an approach later adopted by the Supreme Court. She wrote that history does not establish that governments "can permanently deprive felons of the right to possess arms simply because of their status as felons." Rather, while "legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns . . . that power extends only to people who are dangerous."

  3. Cook County v. Wolf

    Dissent Immigration / Administrative Law 962 F.3d 208 (7th Cir. 2020)

    Question Presented: Whether the Trump administration's expanded "public charge" rule—which considered receipt of certain non-cash public benefits when determining immigration eligibility—was a reasonable interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

    Holding: The majority affirmed the preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the rule in Illinois. Judge Barrett dissented.

    Barrett's View: Judge Barrett argued that the administration's interpretation was not "unreasonable" and that "litigation is not the vehicle for resolving policy disputes." She emphasized judicial restraint, noting that the plaintiffs' objections reflected "disagreement with this policy choice and even the statutory exclusion itself" rather than a valid legal challenge.