buzzfeed--2020-09-25--Deadly Terror Networks And Drug Cartels Use Huge Banks To Finance Their Crimes. These Secret Documen

Deadly Terror Networks And Drug Cartels Use Huge Banks To Finance Their Crimes. These Secret Documents Show How The Banks Profit.

Thousands of secret “ suspicious activity reports ” offer a never-before-seen picture of corruption and complicity — and how the government lets it flourish .
A huge trove of secret government documents reveals for the first time how the giants of Western banking move trillions of dollars in suspicious transactions , enriching themselves and their shareholders while facilitating the work of terrorists , kleptocrats , and drug kingpins .
And the US government , despite its vast powers , fails to stop it .
Today , the FinCEN Files — thousands of “ suspicious activity reports ” and other US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of global financial corruption , the banks enabling it , and the government agencies that watch as it flourishes .
BuzzFeed News has shared these reports with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and more than 100 news organizations in 88 countries .
These documents , compiled by banks , shared with the government , but kept from public view , expose the hollowness of banking safeguards , and the ease with which criminals have exploited them .
Profits from deadly drug wars , fortunes embezzled from developing countries , and hard-earned savings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed to flow into and out of these financial institutions , despite warnings from the banks ’ own employees .
Money laundering is a crime that makes other crimes possible .
It can accelerate economic inequality , drain public funds , undermine democracy , and destabilize nations — and the banks play a key role .
“ Some of these people in those crisp white shirts in their sharp suits are feeding off the tragedy of people dying all over the world , ” said Martin Woods , a former suspicious transactions investigator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to stop financial crime have instead allowed it to flourish .
So long as a bank files a notice that it may be facilitating criminal activity , it all but immunizes itself and its executives from criminal prosecution .
The suspicious activity alert effectively gives them a free pass to keep moving the money and collecting the fees .
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network , or FinCEN , is the agency within the Treasury Department charged with combating money laundering , terrorist financing , and other financial crimes .
It collects millions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SARs .
It makes them available to US law enforcement agencies and other nations ’ financial intelligence operations .
It even compiles a report called “ Kleptocracy Weekly ” that summarizes the dealings of foreign leaders such as Russian President Vladimir Putin .
What it does not do is force the banks to shut the money laundering down .
In the rare instances when the US government does crack down on banks , it often relies on sweetheart deals called deferred prosecution agreements , which include fines but no high-level arrests .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold executives personally accountable , under guidance by former deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein that warned government agencies against “ piling on.
” Rosenstein did not respond to requests for comment , but after this article was published , he wrote to say that his policies sought to “ encourage prosecutors to pursue charges against the people responsible for corporate wrongdoing.
” The FinCEN Files investigation shows that even after they were prosecuted or fined for financial misconduct , banks such as JPMorgan Chase , HSBC , Standard Chartered , Deutsche Bank @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continued to move money for suspected criminals .
Suspicious payments flow around the world and into countless industries , from international sports to Hollywood entertainment to luxury real estate to Nobu sushi restaurants .
They filter into the companies that make familiar items from people ’ s lives , from the gas in their car to the granola in their cereal bowl .
The FinCEN Files expose an underlying truth of the modern era : The networks through which dirty money traverse the world have become vital arteries of the global economy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ wide-ranging and so unchecked that it has become inextricable from the so-called legitimate economy .
Banks with household names have helped to make it so .
Information from millions of these documents feeds into a single database , through which law enforcement officers can summon detailed financial information with a few keystrokes .
The FinCEN Files opens a rare window into this vast system of financial intelligence , unmatched in the world but all but unknown to the public .
The SARs themselves are so closely held that members of the public can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subpoenas , and banks are not allowed even to confirm their existence .
Prior to this reporting , very few SARs had ever been revealed .
The FinCEN Files encompass more than 2,100 .
For more than a year , BuzzFeed News and its partner news organizations across the world mined the information on these tens of thousands of pages to map more than 200,000 transactions .
( Here ’ s an explanation of how we did it . )
In all , suspicious activity reports in the FinCEN Files flagged more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 2017 .
Western banks could have blocked almost any of them , but in most cases they kept the money moving and kept collecting their fees .
Suspicious activity reports are written by the banks ’ financial crime watchdogs , or compliance officers , who are often parked in remote offices and left to make sense of a vast number of transactions with very few resources , writing SARs with little research or verification .
BuzzFeed News ’ research went much further , including reams of internal bank data , thousands of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interviews with sources across the globe , dozens of Freedom of Information Act filings , five public records lawsuits , and requests for three federal courts to unseal records — all to piece together the intricacies of a financial system that is largely hidden .
BuzzFeed News is not publishing the SARs in full because they contain information about people or companies that are not under suspicion , but who were swept up in the banks ’ searches .
A subset of the documents is being published , with redactions , to support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Treasury Department received detailed questions about the FinCEN Files investigation , the agency released a statement saying that it was “ aware that various media outlets intend to publish a series of articles based on unlawfully disclosed Suspicious Activity Reports ( SARs ) .
” It continued , “ the unauthorized disclosure of SARs is a crime that can impact the national security of the United States , compromise law enforcement investigations , and threaten the safety and security of the institutions and individuals who file such reports.
” The agency announced that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department of Justice and the Treasury Department ’ s Office of Inspector General .
In a subsequent letter , FinCEN ’ s general counsel said that disclosure of SARs can make banks less willing to file them , which “ could mean law enforcement has fewer potential leads to stop crimes like human trafficking , child exploitation , fraud , corruption , terrorism , and cyber-enabled crime.
” FinCEN did not respond to repeated invitations to discuss security concerns .
Sen. Ron Wyden , a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the FinCEN Files investigation “ reinforces the fact that we now have two systems of law enforcement and justice in the country.
” Drug cartels move millions through US banks ; poor people go to jail for possession .
“ If you 're wealthy and well-connected , you can figure out how to do an enormous amount of harm to society at large and ensure that it accrues to enormous financial benefit for all of you.
” Robert Mazur , a former federal special agent and an expert in money laundering , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enhance national security , aid future investigations , and encourage institutions to more consistently adhere to SAR filing requirements , ” and `` will hopefully get people who are in a position of power to correct an apparent systemic failure.
” Based in the United Arab Emirates , Mazaka General Trading presented itself to the world as a wholesaler .
But between March 2013 and April 2014 , the company received nearly $ 50 million from five companies involved in a Russian money laundering ring that manipulated international stock trades .
In May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than $ 4 million from a Singapore company that appears barely even to exist .
It was also sending and receiving money from British firms located at 175 Darkes Lane , one of the world 's most notorious addresses for shell companies , which are a common tool to hide ownership .
These transactions by Mazaka General Trading — which the Treasury Department later declared to be a part of the Khanani money laundering network , a group that has financed terrorism and drug cartels around the globe — involved businesses and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States .
But as the money pinged around from one bank to another , it was all being tracked and it would all be reported to the Treasury Department .
Because the US dollar is the lifeblood of international finance , the common denominator between the world ’ s disparate currencies , banking customers around the world need access to it .
But only select banks are licensed to conduct dollar transactions .
So smaller banks in other countries partner with larger institutions , which exchange their customers ’ pesos , yuan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fee , the arrangement , known as correspondent banking , helps keep the global economy humming .
As they pass through US banks , these transfers give the Treasury Department a vantage that no other country has .
It shares some of that information through the Egmont Group , a little-known coalition of financial intelligence units from more than 150 countries and territories .
SARs have provided Egmont members with financial details that would be otherwise unattainable , such as those concerning former Olympic Committee member Lamine Diack , who has been sentenced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian doping scandal , and the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska , who was sanctioned by the US two years ago .
( Deripaska has sued the US government , maintaining that he is an innocent victim of politics . )
But if the database is a powerful asset to law enforcement investigations , to privacy advocates , it is a nightmare of overreach .
Congress created the current SAR program in 1992 making banks the frontline in the fight against money laundering .
But Michael German , a former FBI special agent who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said that after 9/11 , `` the SAR program became more about mass surveillance than identifying discrete transactions to disrupt money launderers.
” Today , he said , `` the data is used like the data from other mass surveillance programs .
Find someone you want to get for whatever reason then sift through the vast troves of data collected to find anything you can hang them with . ''
In 2017 , when US congressional committees began investigating the last presidential election and other matters , they , too , turned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requested SARs on Deutsche Bank , which had loaned Trump money ; Christopher Steele , the former MI6 agent who wrote the so-called Trump dossier ; an array of Russian oligarchs ; Trump ’ s former campaign chairperson Paul Manafort ; and even a small casino in the Pacific run by a former Trump employee .
All told , they were looking for information on more than 200 entities .
FinCEN unearthed tens of thousands of pages of documents .
Those documents , along with a few additional SARs requested by federal law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the FinCEN Files .
Some were never turned over to the committees that requested them .
A person familiar with the matter blew the whistle to multiple members of Congress .
The collection does not include any SARs about Trump ’ s finances .
( A source familiar with the matter told BuzzFeed News that FinCEN ’ s database did not contain SARs on either Trump or the Trump Organization . )
And though the documents show suspicious payments to people in Trump ’ s orbit before and after key moments in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not provide direct information on any election interference .
Because the searches were so broad , however , they revealed something that most in Congress hadn ’ t even been looking for : evidence that the world ’ s biggest banks kept doing business with clients that they themselves suspected were facilitating terror and corruption .
The information was laid out in transaction by transaction .
And it had been there all along .
FinCEN received more than 2 million SARs last year .
That number has nearly doubled over the past decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressure to file and the volume of international transactions has grown .
Over the same period , FinCEN ’ s staff has shrunk by more than 10 % .
Sources there say most SARs are never even read , let alone acted upon .
Meanwhile , experts say , some banks treat SARs as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free card , filing alerts about a huge array of transactions without actually moving to halt them .
In some cases , banks filed numerous reports on the same clients , detailing their suspected crimes over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcome their business .
By December 2013 , JPMorgan Chase had filed at least eight SARs on accounts and companies controlled by Manafort , flagging more than $ 10 million , according to a FinCEN research report .
Manafort , who went on to become Trump ’ s campaign chair , was convicted of bank and tax fraud in 2018 .
Paul Pelletier , a former senior Justice Department lawyer who once led the agency ’ s fraud unit , said that approach makes a mockery of the system .
“ You ca @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SAR without eventually violating the money laundering laws , ” he said .
“ You cut them off and drop them as clients .
But you do n't keep taking their money . ''
Despite the banks ’ sweeping powers to investigate account holders , the FinCEN Files investigation reveals that major financial institutions often fail to perform the most basic checks on their customers , such as verifying where a business is located when someone opens a new account .
The lapses allow criminal groups to hide behind shell corporations , registered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and slide the proceeds of their crimes into the global financial system .
In many cases , the banks appear to have no idea whatsoever whose money they are moving .
When investigators for HSBC ’ s American operations asked their colleagues in Hong Kong for the name of the person who owned Trade Leader , a company that had moved more than half a billion dollars through the bank in less than two years , the answer they got was “ None available.
” The company would reportedly emerge as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a sprawling scheme in which wealthy Russians , facilitated by banks , secretly moved their money into the West .
After scandals like the Russian Laundromat , federal prosecutors have made big pronouncements about forcing meaningful change .
Addressing an anti–money laundering conference in 2015 , Leslie Caldwell , then the head of the Justice Department 's criminal division , said that when it came to getting banks to clean up their acts , deferred prosecution agreements , which typically involve a fine and a probationary period , “ can often accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than , we could from a criminal conviction.
” But the FinCEN Files investigation shows something very different .
Banks often get to the end of their agreement without actually fixing the problems .
Then , instead of getting the prosecution that they had been threatened with , they just get another chance .
And sometimes another .
In 2012 , HSBC faced a historic crisis .
After permitting narcotraffickers to launder money and conducting business in off-limits countries such as Sudan and Myanmar , the bank was fined $ 1.9 billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and to hold it to that promise , the government installed an independent monitor to keep close watch .
But the FinCEN Files investigation shows HSBC continued banking , and profiting from , the same kinds of customers that got it in trouble in the first place , such as a Panamanian import-export firm that the Treasury Department later said was laundering money for drug kingpins .
JPMorgan Chase got a deferred prosecution deal of its own .
For years , it was the primary bank of the world ’ s biggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ multiple warnings from its own employees , the bank never filed a suspicious activity report on him and allegedly collected $ 500 million in fees .
For punishment , the bank was required to pay a $ 1.7 billion fine and promise to improve its money laundering defenses .
But after it settled the Madoff case , the bank ’ s own investigators said they suspected it had opened its accounts to an alleged Russian organized crime figure who is known for drug trafficking and contract murders , as well as businesses tied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which the US has placed off-limits .
It happened at Standard Chartered , too .
Last year , the government amended its 2012 deferred prosecution agreement after the bank was found to have continued clearing transactions for individuals and businesses in off-limits countries , primarily Iran .
The bank paid fines totaling $ 1.1 billion to US and UK authorities , and extended the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement for the sixth time in the space of seven years .
The bank apologized for its “ violations and control deficiencies ” but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The FinCEN Files documents show Standard Chartered processed hundreds of millions of dollars for companies it suspected were circumventing sanctions against Iran until at least 2017 .
Since 2010 , at least 18 financial institutions have received deferred prosecution agreements for anti–money laundering or sanctions violations , according to an analysis by BuzzFeed News .
Of those , at least four went on to break the law again and get fined .
Twice , the government responded to this kind of repeat offense by renewing the deferred prosecution agreement — the very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the government wanted to , experts in financial crime say , it could stop the dirty money coursing through the big banks , as well as the vast array of criminal activity it funds .
One step would be to require companies to disclose their owners to the Treasury Department , rather than allowing people to hide behind a shell company .
Lawmakers are debating a bipartisan bill that could address that for small companies .
The National Federation of Independent Business has opposed it , saying it raises privacy issues and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who cosponsored the bill , told BuzzFeed News , “ Congress must act soon because criminals have long been revising , adjusting , and amending their tactics to circumvent our laws.
” Greater public accountability could also make a difference .
HSBC has fought to keep secret the final report by the monitor that the government installed to watch over the bank during the years of its deferred prosecution agreement .
It even took the unusual step of weighing in on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit , when BuzzFeed News sued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The knowledge that negative reports could become public , and potentially damage share prices , could impel wayward banks to clean up their acts .
Others say the SARs themselves are part of the problem .
German , the former FBI special agent , called the idea behind them `` naive '' because `` the largest money laundering operations occur with the cooperation of the financial institutions , or at least some officers within those institutions .
The lack of money laundering enforcement had nothing to do with a lack of evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of interest by political and law enforcement leadership.
’ ’ The most powerful way to fix the problem might be the simplest : Arrest the executives whose banks break the law .
`` The bankers will never learn until you start putting silver bracelets on people , '' Pelletier said .
`` Think of the message you 're sending to repeat offenders . ''
`` These guys know what they 're doing , ’ ’ said Thomas Nollner , a former regulator with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go to jail , period . ''
That approach was once the norm .
“ Back in the 1980s and 90s and even into the early 2000s , the government went after CEOs all the time , ” said US District Judge Jed Rakoff , who has been an outspoken critic of weak penalties for white-collar criminals .
In the past , the CEOs of Enron , WorldCom , and Tyco were all sent to jail for what they did , he pointed out .
“ Now that ’ s deterrence.
” Rakoff @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a bank that engages in money laundering can literally be forced out of business by the government , and it is kind of surprising that government hasn ’ t taken that step , given the obvious deterrent effect it would have.
” Ultimately , the power to keep criminal profits from being laundered through the US financial system may not reside in the actions of a bank ’ s compliance office or its computer systems or even its executive tier .
It may not reside with banking regulators or federal prosecutors or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a matter of national policy alone .
Shutting down wayward banks could have an impact on the whole economy — for the US , its major trade partners , and beyond .
When other countries find their banks under US scrutiny , they step in .
In 2012 , Standard Chartered and HSBC were facing criminal prosecution .
George Osborne , at that time the UK ’ s chancellor of the exchequer , wrote to the chairperson of the US Federal Reserve , Ben Bernanke , and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to discuss @ @ @ @ @ @ @ response could have “ unintended consequences.
” He warned of a “ contagion.
” The implication : Close one bank and the whole economy could suffer .
Mazur , the former federal special agent and money laundering expert , says there are a “ mosaic ” of reasons why US authorities let the money keep running , but one of them may just be that it finds its way into too many pockets .
“ Even if it 's bad wealth , it buys buildings , ” he said .
“ It puts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation.
” ● Sophie Comeau , Waylon Cunningham , Sam Feehan , Nancy Guan , Kristy Hutchings , Kylie Storm , Felicia Tapia , Karen Wang , Abby Washer , and Ashley Zhang of the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism contributed reporting .

Paul Pelletier, a former senior Justice Department lawyer who once led the agency’s fraud unit, said that approach makes a mockery of the system. “You can't just file SAR after SAR after SAR without eventually violating the money laundering laws,” he said. “You cut them off and drop them as clients. But you don't keep taking their money."
Despite the banks’ sweeping powers to investigate account holders, the FinCEN Files investigation reveals that major financial institutions often fail to perform the most basic checks on their customers, such as verifying where a business is located when someone opens a new account. The lapses allow criminal groups to hide behind shell corporations, registered with no identifying details about their ownership, and slide the proceeds of their crimes into the global financial system.
In many cases, the banks appear to have no idea whatsoever whose money they are moving.
When investigators for HSBC’s American operations asked their colleagues in Hong Kong for the name of the person who owned Trade Leader, a company that had moved more than half a billion dollars through the bank in less than two years, the answer they got was “None available.” The company would reportedly emerge as an important hub in the so-called Russian Laundromat, a sprawling scheme in which wealthy Russians, facilitated by banks, secretly moved their money into the West.
After scandals like the Russian Laundromat, federal prosecutors have made big pronouncements about forcing meaningful change.
Addressing an anti–money laundering conference in 2015, Leslie Caldwell, then the head of the Justice Department's criminal division, said that when it came to getting banks to clean up their acts, deferred prosecution agreements, which typically involve a fine and a probationary period, “can often accomplish as much as, and sometimes even more than, we could from a criminal conviction.”
But the FinCEN Files investigation shows something very different. Banks often get to the end of their agreement without actually fixing the problems. Then, instead of getting the prosecution that they had been threatened with, they just get another chance. And sometimes another.
In 2012, HSBC faced a historic crisis. After permitting narcotraffickers to launder money and conducting business in off-limits countries such as Sudan and Myanmar, the bank was fined $1.9 billion. It promised to change its ways, and to hold it to that promise, the government installed an independent monitor to keep close watch. But the FinCEN Files investigation shows HSBC continued banking, and profiting from, the same kinds of customers that got it in trouble in the first place, such as a Panamanian import-export firm that the Treasury Department later said was laundering money for drug kingpins.
JPMorgan Chase got a deferred prosecution deal of its own. For years, it was the primary bank of the world’s biggest Ponzi schemer, Bernie Madoff. Despite multiple warnings from its own employees, the bank never filed a suspicious activity report on him and allegedly collected $500 million in fees. For punishment, the bank was required to pay a $1.7 billion fine and promise to improve its money laundering defenses. But after it settled the Madoff case, the bank’s own investigators said they suspected it had opened its accounts to an alleged Russian organized crime figure who is known for drug trafficking and contract murders, as well as businesses tied to the repressive North Korean regime, which the US has placed off-limits.
It happened at Standard Chartered, too. Last year, the government amended its 2012 deferred prosecution agreement after the bank was found to have continued clearing transactions for individuals and businesses in off-limits countries, primarily Iran. The bank paid fines totaling $1.1 billion to US and UK authorities, and extended the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement for the sixth time in the space of seven years. The bank apologized for its “violations and control deficiencies” but promised that none had occurred after 2014.
The FinCEN Files documents show Standard Chartered processed hundreds of millions of dollars for companies it suspected were circumventing sanctions against Iran until at least 2017.
Since 2010, at least 18 financial institutions have received deferred prosecution agreements for anti–money laundering or sanctions violations, according to an analysis by BuzzFeed News. Of those, at least four went on to break the law again and get fined. Twice, the government responded to this kind of repeat offense by renewing the deferred prosecution agreement — the very tool that failed the first time.


buzzfeed--2020-09-25--Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died At 87

Ginsburg spent nearly 40 years on the bench , first as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and then on the Supreme Court .
WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , the trailblazing lawyer for sex equality who served on the US Supreme Court for more than 25 years , died Friday evening , the court announced .
She was 87 .
The death of the liberal firebrand in the final year of the Trump administration sets the stage for a brutal partisan nomination fight over her successor .
The confirmation of a conservative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rightward shift of the court since President Donald Trump took office , putting progressive views solidly in the minority on the Supreme Court for the indefinite future .
Ginsburg spent nearly 40 years on the bench , first as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and then on the Supreme Court .
As the cofounder of the Women ’ s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union , Ginsburg played a leading role — if not the key role — in pressing courts to accept legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women differently are unconstitutional .
`` My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed , '' Ginsburg told her granddaughter says before she died , NPR News reported .
Even those she fought most strongly in her efforts acknowledged her role as “ the Thurgood Marshall of gender equality law , ” a title that put her in the company of the trailblazing civil rights pioneer .
Former president Bill Clinton , who nominated Ginsburg to the bench in 1993 , called her `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve on the Supreme Court . ''
`` She was a magnificent judge and a wonderful person—a brilliant lawyer with a caring heart , common sense , fierce devotion to fairness and equality , and boundless courage in the face of her own adversity .
Her 27 years on the Court exceeded even my highest expectations when I appointed her .
`` Her landmark opinions advancing gender equality , marriage equality , the rights of people with disabilities , the rights of immigrants , and so many more moved us closer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' Clinton said .
`` Her powerful dissents , especially her ringing defense of voting rights and other equal protection claims , reminded us that we walk away from our Constitution ’ s promise at our peril .
And she did it all with kindness , grace , and calm , treating even her strongest adversaries with respect . ''
`` Renowned for her brilliant mind and her powerful dissents at the Supreme Court , Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that one can disagree without being disagreeable toward one 's colleagues or different points of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decisions regarding the legal equality of women and the disabled , have inspired all Americans , and generations of great legal minds , '' Trump said .
Former president George W. Bush said Ginsburg `` dedicated many of her 87 remarkable years to the pursuit of justice and equality , and she inspired more than one generation of women and girls . ''
Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family , from complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer , according to the court .
She will be buried at Arlington National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a jurist of historic stature .
We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague .
Today we mourn , but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her a tireless and resolute champion of justice , ” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said in a statement .
Over the past decade , Ginsburg survived multiple bouts of cancer and other health setbacks , but each time she returned to the bench and dismissed speculation that she might retire .
She was treated for cancer in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and most recently in the summer of 2020 .
In 2014 , she was treated for a blockage in one of her arteries .
In November 2018 , she fell and fractured three ribs — doctors then discovered malignant nodules in her left lung , which were removed .
Just days before Ginsburg released a statement on July 17 , 2020 , announcing that she was receiving chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer , the court notified the public that Ginsburg had been admitted to a hospital in Baltimore for a separate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In her July statement , Ginsburg said that despite her health setbacks , she ’ d kept up her work and maintained an “ active daily routine.
” “ I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam .
I remain fully able to do that , ” she said at the time .
Ginsburg 's death comes shortly after Trump released a new short list of people he would nominate to the Supreme Court if a vacancy came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ names he 's already made public .
They include several federal judges confirmed during his first term , including former White House lawyer and DC Circuit Judge Greg Katsas ; three US senators — Sen. Ted Cruz , Josh Hawley , and Tom Cotton ; White House deputy counsel Kate Comerford Todd ; Christopher Landau , Trump 's US ambassador to Mexico ; and current and former Justice Department officials .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday night that the Senate would vote on whoever Trump nominates to replace Ginsburg , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 Supreme Court nomination because it was too close to the election .
McConnell refused at the time to move Judge Merrick Garland 's nomination forward and held the seat open until Trump became president and Justice Neil Gorsuch was nominated and confirmed to the late justice Antonin Scalia 's seat .
McConnell has long said he would vote for another Trump Supreme Court nominee in 2020 , arguing that the election year standard only applied to Obama 's pick of Merrick Garland because the Senate was controlled by a different party than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Schumer tweeted Friday night , quoting McConnell directly from 2016 : `` The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice .
Therefore , this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president . ''
Ginsburg became a celebrity of sorts in recent years — a combination of her efforts to publicize her views and make them accessible to the public and efforts by younger generations , particularly younger women , to share the Brooklyn-born lawyer 's story as one of a woman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fame beyond legal circles .
Secretary of State and former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton noted that `` Ginsburg paved the way for so many women , including me .
There will never be another like her .
Thank you RBG . ''
In 2015 , authors Irin Carmon and Shana Knizhnik tapped into Ginsburg ’ s status as a pop culture icon with their book Notorious RBG .
A documentary about the justice ’ s life , RBG , was nominated for an Academy Award in 2019 .
That year , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ movie On the Basis of Sex , a fictional account of one of the early cases she worked on .
Fans could buy necklace and earring versions of her decorative collars , known as jabots .
On Saturday Night Live , comedian Kate McKinnon repeatedly portrayed the justice , delivering zingers she called “ Gins-burns.
” `` It was beyond my wildest imagination that I would one day become 'Notorious RBG , ’ ” Ginsburg said in an Aug. 26 speech , which marked her first public appearance after completing a round of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ am now 86 years old , yet people of all ages want to take their picture with me — amazing.
” The interviews and books , as well as a documentary and star-studded movie based on her life , were , in some ways , inevitable .
More than 45 years ago , on Jan. 17 , 1973 , Ginsburg made her first oral argument at the court , ending her time at the podium by citing Sarah Grimké , an abolitionist who also fought for women ’ s rights .
In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quoted two sentences from Grimké : “ I ask no favor for my sex .
All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.
” She embraced her status as a feminist icon .
Whenever she was asked how many women justices would be enough on the nine-member Supreme Court , she would answer : “ When there are nine.
” President Clinton ’ s nomination of Ginsburg in 1993 came about , in part , she and others have said , due to the strong advocacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White announced his retirement from the bench in Clinton ’ s first year in office , Martin Ginsburg — as detailed by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker — was working to ensure that his wife was among those being considered by the new administration .
Ultimately , the effort succeeded , and Clinton met with Ginsburg on June 13 , 1993 .
That day , Clinton decided and told Ginsburg she would be his nominee to the Supreme Court .
The next day , he announced her nomination .
For the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ woman on the high court after former justice Sandra Day O ’ Connor — became one of the most consistent liberal voices on the court .
Particularly since the retirement of the late justice John Paul Stevens in 2010 , Ginsburg has been the senior liberal voice on the Supreme Court , authoring influential majority opinions .
As was the practice of her longtime friend and ideological opposite , Scalia , Ginsburg also authored strident , direct dissents that sought to direct lawmakers and members of the public who were likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the fact that , in her view , the court got it wrong .
One of her most famed dissents came in response to a sex discrimination case brought by Goodyear employee Lilly Ledbetter .
When Ledbetter realized that she was being paid less than her similarly situated male coworkers due to past performance evaluations that she argued were themselves discriminatory , she sued .
The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 against Ledbetter , holding that Ledbetter ’ s claim was not allowed because the clock had already run out on filing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her complaint , the court held , would have been when she first received the discriminatory evaluations .
“ The Court ’ s insistence on immediate contest overlooks common characteristics of pay discrimination .
Pay disparities often occur , as they did in Ledbetter ’ s case , in small increments ; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time , ” Ginsburg wrote in her dissent .
Going further , however , Ginsburg sent a blunt message to lawmakers : “ This is not the first time the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Title VII , incompatible with the statute ’ s broad remedial purpose .
… Once again , the ball is in Congress ’ court .
As in [ the past ] , the Legislature may act to correct this Court ’ s parsimonious reading of Title VII.
” The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 , reversing the court ’ s decision , was the first bill signed into law by Obama .
Ginsburg ’ s majority opinions for the court have had similar power .
In 1996 , in her third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the court ’ s majority opinion striking down the Virginia Military Institute ’ s male-only admissions policy .
Ginsburg laid out the history of the court ’ s handling of sex discrimination cases , assessing their importance and detailing what those cases meant for the country in 1996 .
“ Today 's skeptical scrutiny of official action denying rights or opportunities based on sex responds to volumes of history , ” she wrote .
“ As a plurality of this Court acknowledged a generation ago , ‘ our Nation has had a long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The case Ginsburg was referring to , Frontiero v. Richardson , was the first one she ’ d argued before the court .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Ginsburg ’ s death “ devastating ” in a statement Friday night .
“ Justice Ginsberg embodied justice , brilliance and goodness , and her passing is an incalculable loss for our democracy and for all who sacrifice and strive to build a better future for our children .
… We must honor Justice Ginsburg ’ s trailblazing career and safeguard her powerful legacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Supreme Court upholds her commitment to equality , opportunity and justice for all , ” she said .
From the ACLU to the Bench As a lawyer for the ACLU Women ’ s Rights Project , Ginsburg worked on a brief the group filed in the Supreme Court as an amicus curiae , or friend of the court , in a case called Reed v. Reed .
In Reed , the Supreme Court in 1971 struck down a law that “ males must be preferred to females ” to administer a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Warren Burger wrote that the law was “ the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
” When Ginsburg argued her first case before the court two years later , the Frontiero case , she was seeking clarification about the standards for reviewing other , similar types of discriminatory laws .
The case centered on Air Force dependents ’ benefits , which were automatically granted to a man in the military with a wife but only granted to a woman in the military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the husband ’ s financial dependency .
Ginsburg argued the court should apply the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to sex-based discrimination claims similar to how the court had analyzed race-based claims .
“ To provide the guidance so badly needed and because recognition is long overdue , amicus urges the Court to declare sex a suspect criterion , ” she told the court .
Under that “ suspect criterion ” standard , such laws are presumptively unconstitutional .
For the government to win , it had to show that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and that the discriminatory provision was narrowly tailored to advance that interest .
Although the court sided with Sharron Frontiero , the woman Ginsburg was supporting , only four justices — not a majority — adopted Ginsburg ’ s “ suspect classification ” reasoning to resolve the case , with the others holding that the statute in question was impermissible because it represented an “ arbitrary legislative choice.
” Ginsburg ’ s next argument at the court showed that she still had work to do .
She lost , with the court holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provided an exemption to widows but not widowers was constitutional .
Three years later , however , in a case where Ginsburg authored the ACLU ’ s amicus brief , the Supreme Court did — in a 5–4 vote — adopt the view that laws that differentiate based on sex should be subjected to more scrutiny by the court than laws that do not .
Specifically , the court held that an intermediate , or heightened , scrutiny applied and that “ classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Her work continued at the ACLU , alongside her life with her husband , prominent tax lawyer Martin Ginsburg , and their children , Jane and James .
The couple had married before attending Harvard Law School .
She was caring for her husband , raising Jane , and attending law school all at the same time when he was diagnosed with and treated for cancer .
After graduating from Columbia Law School — to which Ginsburg transferred when her husband moved to New York City after he graduated from law school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unable to find work at a law firm .
After clerking for a federal judge in New York , Ginsburg ended up taking a job as a law professor at Rutgers University , where she primarily taught civil procedure law and eventually received tenure .
She later moved to Columbia , where she continued to teach while working with the ACLU .
In 1980 , then-president Jimmy Carter — who had made a point of advocating for more diversity in the judiciary — nominated Ginsburg for the DC Circuit , where she served @ @ @ @ @ @ @

WASHINGTON — Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the trailblazing lawyer for sex equality who served on the US Supreme Court for more than 25 years, died Friday evening, the court announced. She was 87.
The death of the liberal firebrand in the final year of the Trump administration sets the stage for a brutal partisan nomination fight over her successor. The confirmation of a conservative justice to replace Ginsburg would continue the rightward shift of the court since President Donald Trump took office, putting progressive views solidly in the minority on the Supreme Court for the indefinite future.
Ginsburg spent nearly 40 years on the bench, first as a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and then on the Supreme Court. As the cofounder of the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, Ginsburg played a leading role — if not the key role — in pressing courts to accept legal arguments that laws that treated men and women differently are unconstitutional.
"My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed," Ginsburg told her granddaughter says before she died, NPR News reported.
Even those she fought most strongly in her efforts acknowledged her role as “the Thurgood Marshall of gender equality law,” a title that put her in the company of the trailblazing civil rights pioneer.
Former president Bill Clinton, who nominated Ginsburg to the bench in 1993, called her "one of the most extraordinary Justices ever to serve on the Supreme Court."
"She was a magnificent judge and a wonderful person—a brilliant lawyer with a caring heart, common sense, fierce devotion to fairness and equality, and boundless courage in the face of her own adversity. Her 27 years on the Court exceeded even my highest expectations when I appointed her.
"Her landmark opinions advancing gender equality, marriage equality, the rights of people with disabilities, the rights of immigrants, and so many more moved us closer to 'a more perfect union,'" Clinton said. "Her powerful dissents, especially her ringing defense of voting rights and other equal protection claims, reminded us that we walk away from our Constitution’s promise at our peril. And she did it all with kindness, grace, and calm, treating even her strongest adversaries with respect."
President Donald Trump called Ginsburg a "titan of the law."
"Renowned for her brilliant mind and her powerful dissents at the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that one can disagree without being disagreeable toward one's colleagues or different points of view. Her opinions, including well-known decisions regarding the legal equality of women and the disabled, have inspired all Americans, and generations of great legal minds," Trump said.
Former president George W. Bush said Ginsburg "dedicated many of her 87 remarkable years to the pursuit of justice and equality, and she inspired more than one generation of women and girls."
Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family, from complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer, according to the court. She will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
“Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her a tireless and resolute champion of justice,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said in a statement.
Over the past decade, Ginsburg survived multiple bouts of cancer and other health setbacks, but each time she returned to the bench and dismissed speculation that she might retire. She was treated for cancer in 2009, then again in August 2019, and most recently in the summer of 2020. In 2014, she was treated for a blockage in one of her arteries. In November 2018, she fell and fractured three ribs — doctors then discovered malignant nodules in her left lung, which were removed.
Just days before Ginsburg released a statement on July 17, 2020, announcing that she was receiving chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer, the court notified the public that Ginsburg had been admitted to a hospital in Baltimore for a separate issue related to a bile duct stent. In her July statement, Ginsburg said that despite her health setbacks, she’d kept up her work and maintained an “active daily routine.”
“I have often said I would remain a member of the Court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that,” she said at the time.


buzzfeed--2020-09-26--Pennsylvania’s “Naked Ballot” Problem Is Spooking Elections Officials

WASHINGTON — Pennsylvania elections officials are scrambling to educate voters on how to properly submit their mail-in ballots after the state Supreme Court ruled officials can reject ballots received without secrecy envelopes .
“ You know , it ’ s very concerning because we can see 30,000 to 40,000 ballots that can very likely be thrown out , just in Philadelphia , in this upcoming general election , ” Philadelphia City Commissioner Lisa Deeley told BuzzFeed News during a phone interview Thursday .
“ And we know in Pennsylvania , you know , after what we saw in 2016 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election.
” Last week , the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled officials can reject ballots that are not enclosed in a secrecy envelope to conceal how a person voted .
This is a reversal from just this summer , when local election officials had instructed counties to count ballots that came in “ naked , ” or outside of their secrecy envelopes , in June ’ s elections .
Deeley , an elected Democrat , is calling on the state legislature to eliminate the secrecy ballot altogether .
“ One voter who is disenfranchised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told BuzzFeed News .
“ But we are disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters under the cover of law .
It is n't fair to Pennsylvanians that their vote will not be counted on a mere technicality , which is really a vestige from the past.
” The court decision has officials and local advocacy groups rushing to do a last-ditch voter outreach campaign on the new rule , just over a month before the presidential election .
The result of that outreach could decide the presidency : Donald Trump won Pennsylvania with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2016 .
Deeley said the city commissioners ’ office is adding messaging to its communications plan that would advise voters on how to properly submit their mail-in ballot .
Since the ruling , the commissioners ’ office has added a step-by-step explainer graphic on secrecy envelopes to its website and social media platforms .
The decision adds to an onslaught of confusion for Pennsylvania voters , from the fearmongering around mail-in voting coming out of the White House to the bevy of lawsuits from the Trump campaign that threaten the state ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This election marks the first time Pennsylvania voters will widely use mail-in voting options .
Pennsylvania Gov .
Tom Wolf has pushed mail-in voting as a safe way to vote during the pandemic .
Currently , 16 states require a secrecy sleeve to validate mail-in ballots .
It ’ s a measure installed for security and was first adopted by states like Kentucky to avoid voter intimidation .
“ The challenge is balancing voter privacy with voter accessibility , ” Kentucky ’ s former secretary of state Trey Grayson told BuzzFeed News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounding the alarm about votes being tossed , but in another context , other groups could sound the alarm about voters losing the secrecy of the ballot.
” But in states like Kentucky , there ’ s a “ cure ” option , where , in some cases , voters have an opportunity to either resubmit their ballots , vote in person , or give up their anonymity should their ballots be deemed invalid .
The practice , however , requires a longer voting period or rules that allow votes to be counted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the meantime , nonprofits are committing to voter outreach around the issue as best they can during a pandemic .
David Thornburgh , president of the Committee of Seventy , a Philadelphia-based good government organization , has held events on Facebook Live , Zoom , and panels that have reached a couple hundred people .
But its voter outreach campaign , WeVote , which partners with large businesses like health insurers , could reach a half-million voters , he said .
“ At one level , it ’ s real simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an outer envelope , and you need to use both when you are returning your mail ballot for it to count , ” Thornburgh said .
“ The challenge is , we ’ ve got 10 or 15 times as many people voting by mail in this election than we did four years ago.
” The ruling has inspired partisan nonprofits to organize .
Represent PA , a Philadelphia PAC looking to support more women running in state and federal elections , holds biweekly “ breakfast briefings ” for women all over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the political process .
Executive Director Christine Jacobs said Thursday 's event centered around election security and , in light of the recent court ruling , naked ballots .
“ All of the Republican discussions are designed around putting restrictions on voting rather than encouraging people to vote , ” Jacobs said .
“ I think that the feeling is the exuberance of making sure that the Democrat votes are held up.
” Jamie Perrapato , who heads Turn PA Blue , called the decision a “ form of voter suppression ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ combat it , adding language to their voter outreach scripts and planning to share graphics on how to properly submit a ballot .
But overall , Perrapato said , this just adds to the anxiety so many people are feeling around voting : “ I just keep yelling : There ’ s two envelopes ; don ’ t throw anything out !
”

WASHINGTON — Pennsylvania elections officials are scrambling to educate voters on how to properly submit their mail-in ballots after the state Supreme Court ruled officials can reject ballots received without secrecy envelopes.
“You know, it’s very concerning because we can see 30,000 to 40,000 ballots that can very likely be thrown out, just in Philadelphia, in this upcoming general election,” Philadelphia City Commissioner Lisa Deeley told BuzzFeed News during a phone interview Thursday. “And we know in Pennsylvania, you know, after what we saw in 2016, I mean, that could cost an election.”
Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled officials can reject ballots that are not enclosed in a secrecy envelope to conceal how a person voted. This is a reversal from just this summer, when local election officials had instructed counties to count ballots that came in “naked,” or outside of their secrecy envelopes, in June’s elections. Deeley, an elected Democrat, is calling on the state legislature to eliminate the secrecy ballot altogether.
“One voter who is disenfranchised is one too many,” Deeley told BuzzFeed News. “But we are disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters under the cover of law. It isn't fair to Pennsylvanians that their vote will not be counted on a mere technicality, which is really a vestige from the past.”
The court decision has officials and local advocacy groups rushing to do a last-ditch voter outreach campaign on the new rule, just over a month before the presidential election. The result of that outreach could decide the presidency: Donald Trump won Pennsylvania with just 44,292 more votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Deeley said the city commissioners’ office is adding messaging to its communications plan that would advise voters on how to properly submit their mail-in ballot. Since the ruling, the commissioners’ office has added a step-by-step explainer graphic on secrecy envelopes to its website and social media platforms.
The decision adds to an onslaught of confusion for Pennsylvania voters, from the fearmongering around mail-in voting coming out of the White House to the bevy of lawsuits from the Trump campaign that threaten the state’s voting opportunities amid the coronavirus pandemic.
This election marks the first time Pennsylvania voters will widely use mail-in voting options. Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf has pushed mail-in voting as a safe way to vote during the pandemic. Currently, 16 states require a secrecy sleeve to validate mail-in ballots. It’s a measure installed for security and was first adopted by states like Kentucky to avoid voter intimidation.
“The challenge is balancing voter privacy with voter accessibility,” Kentucky’s former secretary of state Trey Grayson told BuzzFeed News. “Right now, groups are sounding the alarm about votes being tossed, but in another context, other groups could sound the alarm about voters losing the secrecy of the ballot.”
But in states like Kentucky, there’s a “cure” option, where, in some cases, voters have an opportunity to either resubmit their ballots, vote in person, or give up their anonymity should their ballots be deemed invalid. The practice, however, requires a longer voting period or rules that allow votes to be counted after Election Day, according to Grayson.
In the meantime, nonprofits are committing to voter outreach around the issue as best they can during a pandemic.
David Thornburgh, president of the Committee of Seventy, a Philadelphia-based good government organization, has held events on Facebook Live, Zoom, and panels that have reached a couple hundred people. But its voter outreach campaign, WeVote, which partners with large businesses like health insurers, could reach a half-million voters, he said.
“At one level, it’s real simple: You’ve got two envelopes, an outer envelope, and you need to use both when you are returning your mail ballot for it to count,” Thornburgh said. “The challenge is, we’ve got 10 or 15 times as many people voting by mail in this election than we did four years ago.”
The ruling has inspired partisan nonprofits to organize. Represent PA, a Philadelphia PAC looking to support more women running in state and federal elections, holds biweekly “breakfast briefings” for women all over Pennsylvania who want to be more engaged in the political process. Executive Director Christine Jacobs said Thursday's event centered around election security and, in light of the recent court ruling, naked ballots.
“All of the Republican discussions are designed around putting restrictions on voting rather than encouraging people to vote,” Jacobs said. “I think that the feeling is the exuberance of making sure that the Democrat votes are held up.”
Jamie Perrapato, who heads Turn PA Blue, called the decision a “form of voter suppression” and said her team is working to combat it, adding language to their voter outreach scripts and planning to share graphics on how to properly submit a ballot. But overall, Perrapato said, this just adds to the anxiety so many people are feeling around voting:
“I just keep yelling: There’s two envelopes; don’t throw anything out!”


buzzfeed--2020-09-26--Here’s How Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Newest Supreme Court Nominee, Has Ruled On Abortion, Imm

Here’s How Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Newest Supreme Court Nominee, Has Ruled On Abortion, Immigration, And Policing

WASHINGTON — Judge Amy Coney Barrett has only been a judge for three years , but she ’ s already developed a robust record on politically divisive issues — including abortion , immigration , and gun rights .
President Donald Trump announced Barrett as his nominee to fill the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s seat on Saturday , just over a week after Ginsburg died of pancreatic cancer .
Barrett was confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in late 2017 , following a career largely spent as a law school academic .
Barrett @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s prior two Supreme Court appointees , Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh , who each spent more than a decade as lower court judges .
Still , her opinions , dissents , and the decisions she ’ s joined written by her colleagues shed light on her legal philosophy .
According to the 7th Circuit ’ s online database of decisions , she ’ s written 97 majority opinions , six dissents , and four concurring opinions .
Her writing style is clear , and she isn ’ t known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s views on abortion are likely to feature prominently in the confirmation fight .
She was on record as being against abortion before she became a judge , and on the 7th Circuit , she has sided with states trying to impose restrictions on the procedure .
Democrats and reproductive rights advocates warn that replacing Ginsburg — a reliable vote for protecting reproductive health — with Barrett would empower the court to revisit abortion rights laid out by the court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and a line of decisions that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of siding with fellow Republican appointees on abortion and other politically divisive issues , with some exceptions — in a gun rights case , for instance , she took an even more expansive view of the reach of the Second Amendment than the two Ronald Reagan appointees who were also on the panel .
In an immigration case , she joined two of her more liberal-leaning colleagues not only in reviving a Mexican man ’ s challenge to a deportation order , but also rejecting a legal opinion by former attorney general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US immigration courts to close pending cases .
With the election less than six weeks away , one area of the law of intense interest for both Democrats and Republicans is how much state and local officials can expand opportunities for mail-in and absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic .
Barrett hasn ’ t participated in a case about that to date .
Before becoming a judge , Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame Law School , a post that gave her more freedom to talk about her personal beliefs ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of conduct that prevents them from publicly expressing views about issues that might end up in court .
She spoke about her opposition to abortion and was a member of University Faculty for Life at Notre Dame .
Barrett hasn ’ t written opinions or dissents about abortion since becoming a judge , but she has participated in cases that offer insight into how she ’ d approach the issue as a Supreme Court justice .
One such case involved two Indiana laws , one that required abortion providers to bury or cremate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based on the race , sex , or disability of the fetus .
In April 2018 , a three-judge 7th Circuit panel that didn ’ t include Barrett blocked both laws from going into effect .
Indiana asked the full 7th Circuit to reconsider the ruling on the fetal remains disposal law .
In an order issued a few months later , the 7th Circuit judges split on whether to take the case en banc , which meant the original decision stood .
Barrett voted in favor of reconsidering the panel ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissent written by Judge Frank Easterbrook that not only questioned the decision to strike down the restrictions on disposing of fetal remains , but also the injunction that blocked Indiana from banning abortion due to race , sex , or disability , which the state hadn ’ t asked the full court to hear .
Another case Barrett participated in involved another Indiana law that requires pregnant teenagers to get permission from a parent or guardian to have an abortion .
Pregnant teens can petition a judge to bypass parental consent , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit panel ruled that Indiana could not enforce a law requiring a teen ’ s parents or guardians to be notified if they went to court to petition a judge .
A few months later , a majority of the 7th Circuit judges voted against reconsidering that decision .
Barrett was one of the judges who voted in favor of granting Indiana ’ s request to reargue the case before the full court .
She didn ’ t write a statement explaining that vote but joined a one-paragraph dissent written by Judge Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s parental notification law hadn ’ t taken effect yet , the case raised important questions about a court ’ s authority to block it .
Trump ’ s executive orders restricting immigration from majority-Muslim nations was the first big Supreme Court fight for his administration , and his attempts at enforcing hardline immigration policies have frequently landed in court .
Barrett has a mixed record when it comes to analyzing the administration ’ s immigration policies .
In one of the few cases where Barrett has written about high-level actions taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to individual immigration cases , she sided with the government ’ s decision to expand the “ public charge ” rule to deny permanent residency to immigrants that officials deemed likely to use public benefits .
On June 10 , the 7th Circuit ruled 2–1 to uphold an injunction that blocked the expanded “ public charge ” rule .
The two judges in the majority wrote that the Department of Homeland Security had gone too far in expanding the rule to cover immigrants who might use temporary or minimal government assistance .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judge Diane Wood wrote , “ requires a degree of dependence that goes beyond temporary receipt of supplemental in-kind benefits from any type of public agency.
” Barrett dissented .
Delving into the historical record , she wrote that when the term “ public charge ” became part of federal immigration law in the late 19th century , it wasn ’ t clear how much government assistance it was referring to .
When Congress updated immigration laws in 1996 , she wrote that lawmakers added restrictions that gave the rule more “ bite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to smaller amounts of government aid .
The challengers and House Democrats had argued that because Congress made welfare benefits available to green card holders , it didn ’ t make sense to deny permanent residency to immigrants who might use those benefits in the future .
Barrett disagreed .
“ A lawful permanent resident who falls on hard times can rely on public assistance to get back on her feet .
Congress ’ s willingness to authorize funds to help immigrants who encounter unexpected trouble is perfectly consistent with its reluctance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ predictable upon arrival , ” Barrett wrote .
In January 2019 , Barrett wrote a 2–1 opinion upholding the Trump administration ’ s decision to deny a visa to the spouse of a naturalized US citizen based on a finding that the spouse was involved in trying to smuggle children into the United States .
The couple argued and presented evidence that the children were in fact their children and also that the children had drowned .
Barrett agreed with a lower court judge who had dismissed the case on the grounds that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consular officers .
The judge who dissented wrote that Barrett ’ s interpretation “ sweeps more broadly than required by the Supreme Court and our own precedent ” and deprived the US citizen husband “ of an important constitutional right.
” In May 2019 , the full court voted against reconsidering Barrett ’ s opinion , and she defended her decision against criticism from her dissenting colleagues that she ’ d empowered consular officers with “ unfettered authority ” to reject visas .
In an immigration case decided in June , Barrett found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of her more liberal-leaning colleagues .
She wrote an opinion not only reviving a deportation challenge but also disagreeing with a legal opinion issued in 2018 by Sessions that restricted the power of immigration judges to administratively close cases , a procedure that puts removal cases on hold .
Qualified immunity , a legal doctrine that allows police to claim immunity against lawsuits accusing them of excessive force and other misconduct , faced new scrutiny this year after the deaths of George Floyd , Breonna Taylor , and other Black people during encounters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have reached different conclusions over the years about how to apply the doctrine , but the Supreme Court has declined to take up the issue to set nationwide standards .
In August 2019 , Barrett wrote an opinion upholding qualified immunity for Chicago police officers sued over a car stop involving three Black men who argued the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to pull them over .
The officers were investigating a shooting and received dispatches that identified the suspects as three Black men in a gray car .
The descriptions didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over , but Barrett wrote that “ reasonable suspicion can exist without an exact match.
” The judge also wrote that officers could be entitled to immunity even if they said they didn ’ t remember the stop and there was no official report about it , based on other evidence showing what they knew at the time .
In January 2019 , Barrett wrote an opinion denying qualified immunity to a detective who made false statements in a sworn affidavit as part of a murder investigation .
The detective ’ s lies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Barrett wrote , and the “ unlawfulness of using deliberately falsified allegations to establish probable cause could not be clearer.
” In July 2019 , the 7th Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of reviving the lawsuit filed by two inmates at an Illinois jail who were hit by buckshot fired by prison guards in response to a fight between other inmates in the dining hall .
The inmates argued the guards used unconstitutional excessive force ( the case didn ’ t involve qualified immunity ) .
The two judges in the majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on key issues — such as whether the fight was over when the guards fired their shotguns , where exactly they aimed the warning shots , and why they fired into the crowd or the ceiling instead of a dedicated “ shot box ” — so the case should go to a jury .
Barrett dissented .
She wrote that there was no evidence the guards intentionally hit the inmates , so the inmates couldn ’ t meet a standard that the Supreme Court had laid out for cases challenging prison discipline — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sadistically.
” She criticized her colleagues , writing that they had tried to “ assist ” the inmates by suggesting possible theories for how the guards intended to hit the inmates that weren ’ t supported by the evidence .
It ’ s been a decade since the Supreme Court heard a major case involving the Second Amendment and the rights of Americans to keep and carry guns .
Kavanaugh , Gorsuch , and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. made clear during the court ’ s last term that they think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issue .
In a March 2019 decision , Barrett wrote that she shared the concern of other conservative judges and gun rights advocates that the Second Amendment was being treated as a “ second-class ” right .
The 7th Circuit had ruled 2–1 to reject a Second Amendment challenge to federal and Wisconsin laws that ban people convicted of most felony crimes from owning or possessing a firearm .
The man who sued had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud , for which he was sentenced to one year and one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fell under the firearms ban .
He argued that the federal and state bans shouldn ’ t apply to nonviolent offenders with no other criminal record .
The two judges in majority found that the government had shown that preventing nonviolent former felons from having guns was “ substantially related to its interest in preventing gun violence.
” They cited studies showing rates of violent crime committed by people who previously were convicted of nonviolent crimes .
Barrett dissented , writing in favor of expanding the Second Amendment ’ s gun rights protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a line between restricting former felons from exercising “ civic rights ” — such as voting and serving on a jury — and restricting “ individual rights ” such as owning a gun .
Allowing the government to ban all former felons from owning a gun without proof that a person presented a risk to public safety treated the Second Amendment as a “ second-class right , ” Barrett wrote .
“ History is consistent with common sense : it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who are dangerous , ” she wrote .
Barrett ’ s nomination now heads to the Senate , where the Judiciary Committee will hold at least one hearing considering her qualifications .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Senate will vote this year on her nomination , though it is unclear whether that vote will come before or after Election Day .
Republicans have said they will vote on the nomination regardless of whether Trump wins the election .

WASHINGTON — Judge Amy Coney Barrett has only been a judge for three years, but she’s already developed a robust record on politically divisive issues — including abortion, immigration, and gun rights.
President Donald Trump announced Barrett as his nominee to fill the late justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on Saturday, just over a week after Ginsburg died of pancreatic cancer. Barrett was confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in late 2017, following a career largely spent as a law school academic.
Barrett brings less experience as a judge than Trump’s prior two Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who each spent more than a decade as lower court judges. Still, her opinions, dissents, and the decisions she’s joined written by her colleagues shed light on her legal philosophy. According to the 7th Circuit’s online database of decisions, she’s written 97 majority opinions, six dissents, and four concurring opinions. Her writing style is clear, and she isn’t known for rhetorical flourishes or snark.
Barrett’s views on abortion are likely to feature prominently in the confirmation fight. She was on record as being against abortion before she became a judge, and on the 7th Circuit, she has sided with states trying to impose restrictions on the procedure. Democrats and reproductive rights advocates warn that replacing Ginsburg — a reliable vote for protecting reproductive health — with Barrett would empower the court to revisit abortion rights laid out by the court in 1973 in Roe v. Wade and a line of decisions that came after.
Barrett has a consistent record of siding with fellow Republican appointees on abortion and other politically divisive issues, with some exceptions — in a gun rights case, for instance, she took an even more expansive view of the reach of the Second Amendment than the two Ronald Reagan appointees who were also on the panel. In an immigration case, she joined two of her more liberal-leaning colleagues not only in reviving a Mexican man’s challenge to a deportation order, but also rejecting a legal opinion by former attorney general Jeff Sessions that limited the power of US immigration courts to close pending cases.
With the election less than six weeks away, one area of the law of intense interest for both Democrats and Republicans is how much state and local officials can expand opportunities for mail-in and absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic. Barrett hasn’t participated in a case about that to date.
Abortion
Before becoming a judge, Barrett was a law professor at Notre Dame Law School, a post that gave her more freedom to talk about her personal beliefs; federal judges are bound by a code of conduct that prevents them from publicly expressing views about issues that might end up in court. She spoke about her opposition to abortion and was a member of University Faculty for Life at Notre Dame.
Barrett hasn’t written opinions or dissents about abortion since becoming a judge, but she has participated in cases that offer insight into how she’d approach the issue as a Supreme Court justice.
One such case involved two Indiana laws, one that required abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal remains and another that banned abortions based on the race, sex, or disability of the fetus. In April 2018, a three-judge 7th Circuit panel that didn’t include Barrett blocked both laws from going into effect. Indiana asked the full 7th Circuit to reconsider the ruling on the fetal remains disposal law.
In an order issued a few months later, the 7th Circuit judges split on whether to take the case en banc, which meant the original decision stood. Barrett voted in favor of reconsidering the panel’s ruling against Indiana. She joined a dissent written by Judge Frank Easterbrook that not only questioned the decision to strike down the restrictions on disposing of fetal remains, but also the injunction that blocked Indiana from banning abortion due to race, sex, or disability, which the state hadn’t asked the full court to hear.
Another case Barrett participated in involved another Indiana law that requires pregnant teenagers to get permission from a parent or guardian to have an abortion. Pregnant teens can petition a judge to bypass parental consent, and in August 2019, a three-judge 7th Circuit panel ruled that Indiana could not enforce a law requiring a teen’s parents or guardians to be notified if they went to court to petition a judge. A few months later, a majority of the 7th Circuit judges voted against reconsidering that decision.
Barrett was one of the judges who voted in favor of granting Indiana’s request to reargue the case before the full court. She didn’t write a statement explaining that vote but joined a one-paragraph dissent written by Judge Michael Kanne. Kanne wrote that because Indiana’s parental notification law hadn’t taken effect yet, the case raised important questions about a court’s authority to block it.
Immigration
Trump’s executive orders restricting immigration from majority-Muslim nations was the first big Supreme Court fight for his administration, and his attempts at enforcing hardline immigration policies have frequently landed in court. Barrett has a mixed record when it comes to analyzing the administration’s immigration policies.
In one of the few cases where Barrett has written about high-level actions taken by the Trump administration, as opposed to individual immigration cases, she sided with the government’s decision to expand the “public charge” rule to deny permanent residency to immigrants that officials deemed likely to use public benefits.
On June 10, the 7th Circuit ruled 2–1 to uphold an injunction that blocked the expanded “public charge” rule. The two judges in the majority wrote that the Department of Homeland Security had gone too far in expanding the rule to cover immigrants who might use temporary or minimal government assistance. The term “public charge,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote, “requires a degree of dependence that goes beyond temporary receipt of supplemental in-kind benefits from any type of public agency.”
Barrett dissented. Delving into the historical record, she wrote that when the term “public charge” became part of federal immigration law in the late 19th century, it wasn’t clear how much government assistance it was referring to. When Congress updated immigration laws in 1996, she wrote that lawmakers added restrictions that gave the rule more “bite” and made clear that it applied to smaller amounts of government aid.
The challengers and House Democrats had argued that because Congress made welfare benefits available to green card holders, it didn’t make sense to deny permanent residency to immigrants who might use those benefits in the future. Barrett disagreed.
“A lawful permanent resident who falls on hard times can rely on public assistance to get back on her feet. Congress’s willingness to authorize funds to help immigrants who encounter unexpected trouble is perfectly consistent with its reluctance to admit immigrants whose need for help is predictable upon arrival,” Barrett wrote.
In January 2019, Barrett wrote a 2–1 opinion upholding the Trump administration’s decision to deny a visa to the spouse of a naturalized US citizen based on a finding that the spouse was involved in trying to smuggle children into the United States. The couple argued and presented evidence that the children were in fact their children and also that the children had drowned. Barrett agreed with a lower court judge who had dismissed the case on the grounds that courts can’t second-guess decisions by consular officers.
The judge who dissented wrote that Barrett’s interpretation “sweeps more broadly than required by the Supreme Court and our own precedent” and deprived the US citizen husband “of an important constitutional right.” In May 2019, the full court voted against reconsidering Barrett’s opinion, and she defended her decision against criticism from her dissenting colleagues that she’d empowered consular officers with “unfettered authority” to reject visas.
In an immigration case decided in June, Barrett found herself on the same side as two of her more liberal-leaning colleagues. She wrote an opinion not only reviving a deportation challenge but also disagreeing with a legal opinion issued in 2018 by Sessions that restricted the power of immigration judges to administratively close cases, a procedure that puts removal cases on hold.
Police
Qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that allows police to claim immunity against lawsuits accusing them of excessive force and other misconduct, faced new scrutiny this year after the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and other Black people during encounters with law enforcement officers. Federal courts have reached different conclusions over the years about how to apply the doctrine, but the Supreme Court has declined to take up the issue to set nationwide standards.
In August 2019, Barrett wrote an opinion upholding qualified immunity for Chicago police officers sued over a car stop involving three Black men who argued the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to pull them over. The officers were investigating a shooting and received dispatches that identified the suspects as three Black men in a gray car. The descriptions didn’t match the car that the officers pulled over, but Barrett wrote that “reasonable suspicion can exist without an exact match.” The judge also wrote that officers could be entitled to immunity even if they said they didn’t remember the stop and there was no official report about it, based on other evidence showing what they knew at the time.
In January 2019, Barrett wrote an opinion denying qualified immunity to a detective who made false statements in a sworn affidavit as part of a murder investigation. The detective’s lies were “material” to the case, Barrett wrote, and the “unlawfulness of using deliberately falsified allegations to establish probable cause could not be clearer.”
In a lawsuit challenging prison discipline tactics, Barrett sided with law enforcement.
In July 2019, the 7th Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of reviving the lawsuit filed by two inmates at an Illinois jail who were hit by buckshot fired by prison guards in response to a fight between other inmates in the dining hall. The inmates argued the guards used unconstitutional excessive force (the case didn’t involve qualified immunity). The two judges in the majority found the record wasn’t clear on key issues — such as whether the fight was over when the guards fired their shotguns, where exactly they aimed the warning shots, and why they fired into the crowd or the ceiling instead of a dedicated “shot box” — so the case should go to a jury.
Barrett dissented. She wrote that there was no evidence the guards intentionally hit the inmates, so the inmates couldn’t meet a standard that the Supreme Court had laid out for cases challenging prison discipline — that the guards acted “maliciously and sadistically.” She criticized her colleagues, writing that they had tried to “assist” the inmates by suggesting possible theories for how the guards intended to hit the inmates that weren’t supported by the evidence.
Second Amendment
It’s been a decade since the Supreme Court heard a major case involving the Second Amendment and the rights of Americans to keep and carry guns. Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. made clear during the court’s last term that they think it’s time to revisit the issue.
In a March 2019 decision, Barrett wrote that she shared the concern of other conservative judges and gun rights advocates that the Second Amendment was being treated as a “second-class” right.
The 7th Circuit had ruled 2–1 to reject a Second Amendment challenge to federal and Wisconsin laws that ban people convicted of most felony crimes from owning or possessing a firearm. The man who sued had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud, for which he was sentenced to one year and one day in prison, which meant he fell under the firearms ban. He argued that the federal and state bans shouldn’t apply to nonviolent offenders with no other criminal record.
The two judges in majority found that the government had shown that preventing nonviolent former felons from having guns was “substantially related to its interest in preventing gun violence.” They cited studies showing rates of violent crime committed by people who previously were convicted of nonviolent crimes.
Barrett dissented, writing in favor of expanding the Second Amendment’s gun rights protections to certain nonviolent ex-offenders. She drew a line between restricting former felons from exercising “civic rights” — such as voting and serving on a jury — and restricting “individual rights” such as owning a gun. Allowing the government to ban all former felons from owning a gun without proof that a person presented a risk to public safety treated the Second Amendment as a “second-class right,” Barrett wrote.
“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous,” she wrote.
Confirmation
Barrett’s nomination now heads to the Senate, where the Judiciary Committee will hold at least one hearing considering her qualifications. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said that the Senate will vote this year on her nomination, though it is unclear whether that vote will come before or after Election Day. Republicans have said they will vote on the nomination regardless of whether Trump wins the election.