The Court's majority avoids the larger question of whether laws targeting transgender individuals should be subject to heightened scrutiny, but Justice Barrett did not.
Perceptions of Amy Coney Barrett may have changed more than her jurisprudence or voting record.
An interesting tidbit from today's NYT profile of Justice Amy Coney Barrett
Professor Joel Alicea on how to understand what may be the most important jurisprudential divisions on the Supreme Court.
Unanimous rulings on discrimination, guns, and religion once again challenge the common media narrative that the Court is hopelessly polarized.
Claims that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is at the center for the Court are not supported by the data. The truth is more complicated.
The Supreme Court is not as “extreme” or divided as it may seem.
His criticism of President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reform is hard to take seriously.
That some legal commentators are surprised by Justice Barrett may say more about Court commentary (and the way she was caricatured when nominated) than it does about Justice Barrett.
Her concurrence is a reminder that the application of criminal law should not be infected by personal animus toward any given defendant.
There is a great deal of panic surrounding the "extreme" nature of the current Court. But that is often not based in reality.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.
Survey data casts doubt on the textualist rationale for the major questions doctrine that I and others have advanced. But perhaps not as much doubt as it might seem.
In today's student loan decision, Justice Barrett offers a textualist rationale for this controversial rule. I have made similar arguments myself.
Today's opinions are a requel to prior splits among the most recent Republican appointees to the Supreme Court.
The Bank Secrecy Act divides the justices in an unusual way, and Justice Barrett authors her fourth opinion in an argued case.
Because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud conviction, Bryan Range is no longer allowed to own guns.
The Associated Press reports on the junior-most Justice's remarks at the Reagan library.
The university's vaccine requirement will remain in force.
The junior justice wrote only four signed opinions in argued cases, but had several dissents from the April sitting.
The newest justice makes her debut in a brief concurrence on the shadow docket.
Justice Barrett should revisit her views on this wrongly maligned case.
A challenge to the federal ban on gun possession by people convicted of felonies gives SCOTUS a chance to rectify its neglect of the Second Amendment.
It is not clear how the Court will ultimately resolve the case. But it is obvious that a majority of justices oppose invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.
Democratic warnings that Amy Coney Barrett would threaten Obamacare were predictably overblown.
Attorneys for Luzerne County are no longer asking the newest justice to recuse from Pennsylvania election litigation.
The motion was submitted on behalf of the Luzerne County Board of Elections but Luzerne County has voted to have the motion withdrawn.
Decisions that progressives don't like are not necessarily a sign that something has gone horribly wrong.
There's no precedent for a recusal, but there's also no precedent for the current situation.
All Democrats voted in opposition, making Barrett's confirmation the most partisan since Reconstruction.
The Supreme Court nominee weighs in on a famous case.
"This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.)
As a professor, Judge Barrett expressed a skepticism of Executive Power that is uncommon among Republican nominees.
Americans likely learned very little about her judicial philosophy.
They have serious flaws, many of which are on display this week. But we are still better off with them than without them.
In several cases, the Supreme Court nominee voted to allow civil rights lawsuits against officers accused of misconduct.
"Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights" -- why the "but"?
The senator thinks people with felony records should lose the right to armed self-defense but not the right to cast a ballot.
Why are LGBT leaders letting the antigay senator frame polyamory as something bad and wrong?
If that standard were applied to other constitutional rights, no one would be left to enforce them.
Sens. Mazie Hirono and Cory Booker both criticized the Supreme Court nominee for saying "preference" instead of "orientation."
Such theories are not based in fact.
The Texas senator notes the opposing party's blind spots on freedom of speech and the right to arms.
Republicans understandably prepared for attacks on Barrett's faith which thankfully haven't materialized.
There is little reason to think Barrett would vote to overturn the Affordable Care Act, which in any case seems legally secure.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
