Supreme Court Refuses to Take Amy Coney Barrett’s Case

Source: Kare 11

The United States Supreme Court recently declined to take up a case where Judge Amy Coney Barrett ruled for the anonymous litigant. In Joh Doe vs. Purdue, Judge Barrett ruled that the defendant was in the right in his recognition of the University discriminating against him. Let’s see why the Supreme Court made this decision.

The Case And its Fallout

In 2019, the anonymous student sued Purdue University for suspending him for sexual assault, a charge he eventually overturned. He stated the suspension cost him an ROTC spot.

Source: Flickr/Rob Slaven

The University appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, but the court declined to pursue the case on Monday. It was a landmark victory for Title IX legislation.

What Is A Writ of Certiorari?

A writ of certiorari is a legal order issued by a higher court to review a decision of a lower court. It grants the higher court discretion to accept or decline the review.

Source: Flickr/Matt Wade

These writs are typically reserved for cases of significant legal importance or where lower courts have diverged in their interpretations.

What Does the Writ Have to Do with This Case?

The writ isn’t about the original decision but about certain circumstances that occurred when Purdue brought the case to appeal.

Source: Flickr/HopeMedia Stock Photography

The case is usually assigned by a judge to a magistrate to rule on it. The ruling would overwrite Judge Barrett’s initial ruling on the case and potentially overturn the outcome.

Barrett Highlights the Discrimination

The appeals court sided with the student, underlining that the university violated his right to due process and that the suspension and its associated fallout caused undue damage to the student.

Source: Flickr/Trump White House Archived

The opinion and order authored by Barrett states that there was a good chance that the university decided to believe the accuser solely because she was a woman.

No Conflict of Interest

The Supreme Court declined to take up the case. They also noted that Judge Barrett had no input into this decision since it would obviously be a conflict of interest since she was on the original panel of judges.

Source: Flickr/downloading toffehoff

Alex Badas, a judicial politics expert from the University of Houston, mentions that Barrett’s original ruling will remain in force and serve as the final ruling on the case.

Several Reasons At Play

While the Supreme Court refused to pursue the case, that doesn’t necessarily mean that all the judges on the bench agreed with Barrett’s decision. It just shows that there may be other factors at play.

Source: Flickr/Kevin Burkett

The Court could have considered the case not to be worth their time, or they might just consider waiting for lower courts to build up a consensus of ruling before they take it up.

New Ethical Guidelines Raise Eyebrows

According to new ethical guidelines governing the Supreme Court judges, judges who recuse themselves from a case don’t necessarily have to give a reason for their recusal.

Source: Flickr/Keith Survell

In this case, Judge Barrett recused herself to avoid a conflict of interest. It was easy to infer what the recusal was for, but Judge Barrett didn’t state that reason outright.

Many Wondered What Sort of Judge Barrett Would Be

Barrett, the newest Supreme Court judge, was nominated by former president Donald Trump. Many people wondered if she would display conservative tendencies because of who nominated her to the bench.

Source: Flickr/Cody and Maureen

Some media outlets described this ruling as a useful window into Barrett’s view of gender issues. Another outlet called it one of the judge’s most troubling opinions.

Barret’s Ruling Is Chastised

Many publications took umbrage at Barrett’s decision, claiming that the judge punished the University for behavior that should be promoted. However, some people see it from her point of view.

Source: Flickr/Ilmicrofono Oggiono

Some commentators note that there was no call for the university to revoke the student’s right to a fair trial, and they point toward Title IX legislation as the reason for the university’s behavior.

Discrimination Was Plausible, Said Barrett

The note that Barrett included in the ruling stated that the university’s actions showed discrimination toward John Doe on the merit of his sex and possibly denied him an educational opportunity.

Source: Flickr/Mike Atherton

This ruling came in response to a lower court ruling that dismissed Doe’s claims as frivolous. In the reversal, Barrett called the lower court’s ruling “premature” in its conclusions.

Something Could Be Wrong Here

As the Supreme Court declined the case, it will now be heard by a judge assigned by Judge Joshua Kolar. However, all is not well with this assignment.

Source: Flickr/DDOT DC

John Doe claims that Judge Kolar has assigned the case to a magistrate judge, a close friend of Purdue’s counsel. The student argued that the lower court judge should recuse himself.

The Crux of the Matter

If a new ruling is issued in this particular case, it could affect more than the student’s settlement with Purdue. It could also rewrite how courts interpret Title IX rulings.

Source: Flickr/slgckgc

Title IX was designed not to preclude any student from education based on their sex. If the ruling is overturned, it could lead to the student and others like him being maligned for being male.

An Ideological Problem

Purdue suspended the student without due process because it was what was expected of them. The “listen and believe” movement has made it so that accusers are automatically believed in rape cases.

Source: Flickr/Steven Cateris

When the university had to reverse its decision, the damage was already done, and the student’s life unerringly changed. Purdue should not be able to shrug off destroying a student’s opportunities without fear of having to defend their decision.

Very Difficult to Get Cert Granted

The student’s appeal to the Supreme Court was a long shot, in any case. However, Philip Byler, attorney for John Doe, said they felt they had enough grounds to push for it.

Source: Flickr/North Charleston

Byler stated that the cert petition highlighted corruption that significantly affected the fairness of the decision. Byler says the responsibility to ensure this sort of corruption doesn’t happen lies with the Supreme Court. Turning down the petition shows they may not want a fair decision here.

What do you think?

201 Points
Upvote Downvote
Sally Reed

Written by Sally Reed

Sally, a dynamic and viral writer, has taken the literary world by storm with her exceptional storytelling prowess. With an uncanny ability to tap into the collective consciousness of her readers, she crafts narratives that resonate deeply and linger long after the last word is read.

Born with a creative spirit, Sally honed her writing skills from a young age, cultivating a unique voice that blends emotion, wit, and social insight. Her work spans a wide spectrum, from poignant short stories that tug at the heartstrings to thought-provoking essays that challenge conventional thinking.

Leave a Reply


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

Air Force One Theft Scandal: Journalists Warned to Stop Pilfering Presidential Plane

JK Rowling Stands Against Scotland’s New Hate Crime Law