AFJ Action Campaign

Block Barrett

Trump and Senate Republicans have been consistently clear they expect the Supreme Court – and nominee Amy Coney Barrett herself – to do their dirty work for them.

Trump has implied his nominee must be committed to undermining a core tenet of democracy, that every vote counts, in addition to taking away healthcare from millions and overturning Roe v. Wade. Most striking, just days after the election, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act and be primed to fulfill the president’s wish of eradicating protections for those with preexisting conditions—all during a worldwide pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and left millions more to cope with chronic lifelong health conditions.

The president is also clearly trying to use the Supreme Court to orchestrate his reelection, even if it means overruling the will of the people. For months, he sowed doubts about voter protection measures and absentee ballots, the very kind of ballots that he uses to vote. Now he named a Supreme Court nominee with the brazen expectation that she will be seated and rule in his favor when he challenges the election results.

So, what can you do?

This needs to be the toughest vote they will ever take. Because this is a health care vote. Confirming this nominee is entirely about putting one more anti-health care Justice on the Court just weeks before the Court takes up a case challenging the entire law as unconstitutional.

Help us make it a tough vote by:

  • Signing this petition
  • Calling your senators now ((202) 224-3121) and tell them to Block Barrett. (SEE the call script under our resources tab).
  • Tweeting at your senators and tell them that this is #blockbarrett & #wedissent.
  • Spreading the word on social media using #blockbarrett & #wedissent.
  • Utilizing these resources

Join us in this fight!

Demand that a vacancy be filled only after the next president is inaugurated

Demand YOUR senators vigorously oppose this nominee and process.

We cannot allow this president to steal our courts and our healthcare for generations. 

Call Script

Call your senators today and tell them to oppose Amy Coney Barrett. Fill out the form above to be automatically connected with your representatives. You can use this script as guidance on what to say:

My name is [name], and I’m a constituent from [city] calling to oppose Amy Coney Barrett, Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Barrett will take away the healthcare from millions and turn back the clock to when insurance companies denied coverage for those with preexisting conditions. She will harm racial justice efforts, reproductive rights, protections for workers, LGBTQ people, and more. She should not be given a lifetime seat on the bench. I urge Senator [X] to oppose Barrett’s nomination. Thank you.

Access to Health Care

Amy Coney Barrett (Seventh Circuit) criticized Chief Justice John Roberts for his decision to uphold the ACA.


Reproductive Freedom

Amy Coney Barrett (Seventh Circuit) has been critical of Roe v. Wade. Barrett also signed a letter criticizing the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide contraceptive coverage as part of their employer-sponsored health insurance plans.


Although not in the majority, in Planned Parenthood v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett voted to rehear a case that enjoined an Indiana abortion law that was found unconstitutional by a panel on the Seventh Circuit.


Racial Justice

In EEOC v. AutoZone, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett sided against an African-American worker whose company transferred him to another store in accordance with their practice of segregating employees by race. As three dissenting judges noted, this allowed the company to continue a “separate-but-equal arrangement” despite Congress’s intent in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to eliminate such blatant racism.


Police Misconduct

In Schmidt v. Foster, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett dissented from a decision that held that a state trial judge had denied a man his Sixth Amendment right to counsel after the judge ordered the defendant’s lawyer to not participate in a pre-trial hearing while the man was questioned by the judge.


In McCottrell v. White, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett dissented from a ruling that denied summary judgment to prison guards who fired their weapons over a crowded prison dining hall during a fight between inmates, striking several inmates with buckshot and causing significant injuries. Based on the record in the case, the majority explained, Barrett’s view that there was no evidence that the guards “shot into the crowd” was simply “incorrect.”


In United States v. Uriarte, Seventh Circuit Judges Amy Coney Barrett, Michael Scudder, and Michael Brennan would have ignored the First Step Act’slower mandatory minimum sentences in the case of Hector Uriarte, who had been unlawfully sentenced before the Act passed and was now being re-sentenced. The judges argued that the mere existence of a previous sentence—even one vacated due to legal error—meant the First Step Act should not apply. This interpretation would have resulted in a mandatory additional 25 years’ imprisonment for Uriarte.


Worker Protections

In Kleber v. Care Fusion Corp, Seventh Circuit judges Amy Coney Barrett, Michael Brennan, Michael Scudder, and Amy St. Eve cast the deciding votes to rule that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act does not protect job seekers from policies and practices that have a “disparate impact;” in other words, policies that have the effect of discriminating based on age. They held that the statute did not protect a 58-year-old applicant who was refused an interview for a senior position because the company was only seeking applicants with fewer than seven years’ experience. The company hired a 29-year-old with far less experience.


In Wallace v. GrubHub Holdings, Inc., Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett ruled against drivers claiming that GrubHub, in violation of established federal law, failed to pay them overtime they were entitled to.  Despite the fact that transportation workers engaged in “interstate commerce” are exempt from mandatory arbitration agreements, Barrett held the drivers were required to undergo a too often biased arbitration process for any claims.  As the drivers’ attorney noted, “Certainly when Congress enacted the [Federal Arbitration Act], it never foresaw that it would be used to stop drivers for a major national delivery company from challenging their employer’s systematic violation of wage laws.”


Consumer Protections

In FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, Seventh Circuit judges Amy Coney Barrett, Michael Brennan, Michael Scudder, and Amy St. Eve refused to reconsider a decision prohibiting the FTC from seeking restitution for victims of consumer fraud. To reach the result, the Seventh Circuit overturned its own precedent and ignored opposite rulings from eight other circuits.


In Casillas v. Madison Ave. Associates Inc., Amy Coney Barrett wrote a decision denying consumers the ability to enforce their rights under federal law against abusive debt collection practices.


In Chronis v. U.S., Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett ruled against a woman who experienced bruising and pain as a result of a routine pap smear and sought to recover $332 in expenses incurred because of the injury. Despite making a claim for “restitution” and including over 60 pages of documents, which included that the doctor had committed malpractice, Barrett ruled — over a dissent from a George H.W. Bush appointee — that the woman’s efforts were somehow insufficient to put the defendant on notice of her claim.


Immigrant Rights

In Yafai v. Pompeo, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett authored an opinion holding that a Yemeni woman’s visa application was properly denied, even though the consular officer’s conclusion that she attempted to smuggle two children into the country was lacking evidentiary support. The woman’s husband, an American citizen, provided evidence that the children, who passed away while the visa application was pending, were in fact their children.


In Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett wrote a 2-1 opinion affirming the Bureau of Immigration Appeals’ rejection of an El Salvadoran’s request for protection from deportation under the United National Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Alvarenga-Flores argued that if sent back to El Salvador he would be tortured or killed by gangs.


In Cook County v. Wolf, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett argued in dissent that the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule was lawful and should be upheld. The rule would deny immigrants permanent residence if they received any form of public assistance, including Medicaid or food stamps, for more than 12 months in a three-year period, even though Congress has made these benefits available to them.


Gun Safety

In Kanter v. Barr, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett dissented from a decision holding a federal law restricting felons’ gun rights was constitutional as applied to a felon convicted of mail fraud. The two Reagan appointees in the majority pointed out that Barrett’s position conflicted with every appellate court that has addressed the issue.


Rule of Law

In Cook County v. Wolf, Seventh Circuit judge Amy Coney Barrett argued in dissent that the Trump administration’s “public charge” rule was lawful and should be upheld. The rule would deny immigrants permanent residence if they received any form of public assistance, including Medicaid or food stamps, for more than 12 months in a three-year period, even though Congress has made these benefits available to them.


In the News

New York Times

Judge Barrett was critical of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s 2012 opinion sustaining a central provision of the Affordable Care Act, saying he had betrayed the commands of textualism. “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute,” she wrote. 

Washington Post

Barrett sided with John Doe (student accused of sexual assault on campus) saying: “It is plausible that [university officials] chose to believe Jane because she is a woman and to disbelieve John because he is a man,” Barrett wrote in the case, in which the accuser was identified as Jane Doe and the accused as John Doe. 

Politico

Barrett espouses a conservative approach to interpreting the Constitution with a strong deference to religious values.