During Her Tenure on the 7th Circuit, Amy Coney Barrett Overwhelmingly Ruled against Immigrants in Relevant Cases

WASHINGTON, D.C. During yesterday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Judge Amy Coney Barrett refused to respond to a line of questioning about human rights and whether it was wrong to separate children from their parents at the border.  

 Barrett simply responded to the questions with the excuse, “That’s been a matter of policy debate and obviously that’s a matter of hot political debate in which I can’t express a view or be drawn into as a judge.”  

“Amy Coney Barrett has ducked and dodged any real questions she is asked at her nomination hearings, even refusing to answer something as straightforward and reviled as whether children should be torn from their parents’ arms and taken into federal custody,” said Kyle Herrig, Accountable.US president. “Judge Barrett’s deliberate fight to keep from weighing in on anything of substance to provide any sort of proper depiction of her record is an affront to the process of placing a justice on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment and a massive offense to the people of the United States who will be on the receiving end of her decisions.”

Accountable.US found that according to Barrett’s Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals record, she sided against immigrants in their cases before her 88 percent of the time. 

Some examples of Barrett ruling against immigrants include:  

  • Mohsin Yafai and Zahoor Ahmed v. Mike Pompeo, SoS: Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion that refused to review a denied visa claim — despite the existence of evidence that the reason for the denial was unfounded. A dissenting judge said the familial rights of an American citizen were jeopardized as the visa was denied based on the claims the woman had previously attempted to “smuggle” two children into the United States — two children who the plaintiffs divulged later drowned. 
  • Gerson E. Alvarenga-Flores v. Jefferson B. Sessions III: Amy Coney Barrett wrote an opinion rejecting a Salvadorian asylum-seeker’s application based on fears of gang torture due to what she called “inconsistencies” in a story of a gang attack for a man who did not speak English.
  • Cook County, Illinois v. Chad F. Wolf: Amy Coney Barrett wrote a dissent in defense of Chad Wolf and the Department of Homeland Security over a policy intended to deny any change in status to any immigrant who received public assistance.

Read more about Amy Coney Barrett’s history ruling against immigrants here.


back to top