On Monday, the court refused to hear the lawsuit of John Doe v. Purdue. In this case, an anonymous student sued the school for what he believed was an unfair finding of guilt for sexual assault, which resulted in a one-year suspension and the loss of his place in the Navy ROTC program. The appellate decision on campus sexual assault, which was issued by a three-judge panel in 2019 and included Barrett, remains one of the most impactful rulings in this area.
The appeals court ruled in favor of the student, stating that the university had violated his right to due process and had engaged in gender discrimination under Title IX. In a written opinion and order by Barrett, the panel acknowledged the possibility that Purdue’s investigation panel had favored Jane Doe because of her gender and discredited John based on his gender.
The Supreme Court’s order list on Monday stated that the petition for a writ of certiorari has been denied. It was also mentioned that Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
According to Alex Badas, a judicial politics expert from the University of Houston, the Supreme Court’s denial of the case implies that Barrett’s previous decision “will stay in effect and serve as the ultimate ruling on the issue.”
He pointed out that it does not imply that most of the bench shared Barrett’s opinion.
Badas explained that certiorari decisions take into account various factors, which sometimes result in the Court denying a case despite disagreeing with its outcome.
According to legal expert John Doe, it is plausible that the Court did not consider the specific case as significant enough to merit their immediate attention. Alternatively, they may have opted to allow the general legal issue to be debated and analyzed in lower courts before intervening and issuing a ruling. Doe further suggests that the Justices may prefer to have a comprehensive compilation of lower court decisions on the matter, as this would provide them with a wider range of perspectives when they eventually address the case.
Badas explained that it is customary for justices to abstain from cases they previously presided over as lower court judges. However, Barrett’s choice to refrain from clarifying her recusal in this instance, despite the fact that it can be easily deduced, brings attention to a recent trend observed in the Supreme Court following the implementation of new ethical guidelines.
In September 2020, when Barrett was nominated by former President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court, many legal observers looked to the Seventh Circuit’s decision to get a sense of what kind of justice Barrett would be.
The case of John Doe v. Purdue University, widely anticipated to shed light on Barrett’s stance on gender discrimination and sexual assault cases, was deemed by Fortune Magazine as offering a glimpse into her perspectives. Public Justice, a legal advocacy group, also labeled the appellate ruling as one of Barrett’s most concerning opinions.
According to Alexandra Brodsky, a senior attorney at Public Justice, many lawyers have focused on Judge Barrett’s limited experience as a judge. One of her most concerning opinions, in the eyes of civil rights advocates, is the case of Doe v. Purdue University. In this instance, Judge Barrett’s ruling seemed to twist a sex discrimination statute, which was initially intended to prevent and address sexual assault, in a way that actually promoted impunity for such behavior.
In their ruling, Barrett and the two other judges from the appeals panel acknowledged that the student’s allegations presented a convincing argument that he was denied an educational benefit because of his sex. The court overturned the previous dismissal of Doe’s claims, which they deemed as premature. Nonetheless, upon remanding the case, the appeals court did not mandate the district court judge to recuse himself from the proceedings.
According to Philip Byler, Doe’s attorney, obtaining a grant of cert is an incredibly challenging task. Byler expressed his disappointment, stating, “The cert petition in this case highlighted the corrupt practices that have had a detrimental impact on the law, particularly in the significant case of Doe v. Purdue. The U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to address this issue, and it is disheartening that they chose not to do so. Amy Coney Barrett and the rest of the Supreme Court justices cannot claim ignorance on this matter. They should be held accountable for their inaction.”
