Amy Coney Barrett’s Pro-Corporate Record in Line with Trump’s Industry Allyship 

HELENA, MT – This past weekend, President Trump officially nominated Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Since Barrett has only been a federal judge since 2017, not much is known yet about her environmental record. But from her views on corporations to women’s reproductive rights and health care, it’s fair to call her a devotee of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked in the late 1990s — far from a pro-environmental champion. 

“With Amy Coney Barrett’s history of repeatedly siding with corporate interests over people, all signs point to her putting Trump’s personal agenda ahead of the health and safety of Americans and the nation’s public lands,” said Western Values Project director Jayson O’Neill. “Trump has already rolled back a historic number of essential public land and environmental protections — earning him the dubious record of being the worst public lands and environmental President in history. But if Barrett is confirmed to the high court, Trump’s actions could be upheld, enshrining a lasting threat to our nation’s public lands and environmental well-being.”  

New findings by government watchdog Accountable.US show that in her time serving on the 7th Circuit, Barrett ruled with corporate interests over people 76% of the time. And with Trump’s history endangering western lands to promote the oil and coal industries, his choice to tap Barrett is of little surprise.  

Here is a look at a few of Barrett’s previous anti-environmental judicial rulings: 

• “This summer, Barrett blocked an effort by a park preservation group and Chicago residents to stop construction of the Obama Presidential Center in the city’s Jackson Park.” 
• “Signed on to a 2018 decision that asked the Army Corps of Engineers to revisit its decision that placed 13 acres of Illinois wetlands off-limits to a housing developer.” 
• “Barrett was a clerk for Scalia in 1999 when the Supreme Court agreed to hear what would turn out to be a major ruling, written by Ginsburg, that opened the door for environmental groups to sue industrial polluters.” Scalia was one of two justices that dissented.  

If confirmed, it is likely that Barrett will continue her proven pattern of siding with corporate interests and work to overturn Obama-era environmental protections that the Trump administration has been so adamant about erasing, including addressing the climate crisis already ravaging the nation. 

###