Article III Project: Trump “Could Not Have Picked a Better Supreme Court Nominee” than Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Davis: Barrett is a “Rock-Solid Conservative” and “Exceptionally Well Qualified”

WASHINGTON, DC — The Article III Project (A3P) released a statement praising President Donald J. Trump for his nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States:

“President Trump could not have picked a better Supreme Court nominee,” said A3P founder and president Mike Davis.  “Judge Barrett is a Notre Dame law graduate who finished number one in her class and served as the executive editor of the law review. She clerked for the late, great Justice Scalia, where she was schooled in textualism and originalism. She has served as a Notre Dame law professor for 18 years, and President Trump appointed her to the Seventh Circuit in Indiana three years ago. She is a rock-solid conservative, who demonstrated in her confirmation hearing for the Seventh Circuit that she has a backbone of steel. Judge Barrett is young, brilliant, and exceptionally well-qualified. And she is an everyday American from the Heartland, who is a working mother of seven children – including a child with disabilities and two children adopted from Haiti. With the appointment of a Justice Barrett as his third Supreme Court pick, President Trump will transform the 5-4 John Roberts court to the 6-3 Clarence Thomas court. A3P will fight to confirm a Justice Barrett before the end of October.”

To learn more about A3P’s work visit:

For Immediate Release                         Media Contacts:

  Matt Mackowiak   (512) 423-6116 /

Ian Prior                   (571) 639-6711 /

# # #

The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, Circuit Judge

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Nominated to Serve as an

Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States


Born: January 28, 1972 in New Orleans, Louisiana

Education: Rhodes College (B.A. 1994), magna cum laude; Notre Dame Law School (J.D. 1997), first in her class, executive editor of the law review

Husband: Jesse Barrett, Partner at SouthBank Legal, South Bend, Indiana

Children: Seven children (7 children, 5 biological children, 1 with Down’s syndrome, 2 adopted children from Haiti)

Clerkships: Judge Laurence Silberman, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Second Highest Court in the Land) (1997-98); Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States (1998-99)

Private Practice: Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, Washington, D.C. (1999-2002)

Academia: Professor of Law, Notre Dame (2002-17); Visiting Associate Professor of Law, George Washington Law School (2001-02)

Current Position: Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2017 through present)

Confirmation Vote: 55-43

NOTE: all GOP senators and 3 Democrat Senators — Donnelly (Indiana), Kaine (Virginia), and Manchin (West Virginia) — voted to confirm Judge Barrett; Senators McCaskill (Missouri) and Menendez (New Jersey) did not vote

Selection of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Opinions

Kanter v. Barr

Judge Barrett dissented from the majority in a Second Amendment case that held the firearm dispossession statute, which barred convicted felons from possessing a firearm, was not unconstitutional. In her dissenting opinion, Judge Barrett stated that the statute was overly broad as it could be used to take away the constitutional rights of individuals like Kanter (convicted of mail fraud) where there was no evidence he posed a risk to society.

Doe v. Purdue University

Judge Barrett wrote the opinion for a three-judge panel that reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss the appellant’s case against Purdue University for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights and for Title IX sex discrimination. The appellant had been suspended by the University for alleged sexual assault and the administration chose to believe his accuser without ever hearing from her beyond a letter. Further, Judge Barrett and the other judges held that a letter from the Department of Education in 2011 pressuring schools to thoroughly investigate sexual assault accusations or lose federal funding, was factual evidence that could support a Title IX claim. Therefore, the appeals court held that the appellant was entitled to proceed with his lawsuit at the district court.