Amy Coney Barrett Takes Issue With Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court Move

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett took issue this week with Justice Clarence Thomas.

The nondelegation doctrine, which forbids Congress from transferring its primary legislative authority to federal agencies or other nonelected officials, is something that conservatives are eager to see revived, Newsweek noted.

Barrett, a Trump nominee, voiced serious concerns on March 27 about bringing back the doctrine, which hasn’t been applied since the 1930s and could significantly reduce the authority of government agencies.

It also contributes to a larger story about Barrett’s role on the court, as she avoids Thomas’s strict conservatism and instead takes a moderate stance on a number of social issues.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether an FCC fund that requires communications companies to pay for phone lines and internet cable to be installed in rural and economically disadvantaged areas is legal. The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, was heard on March 26.

A large portion of that additional expense is then passed on to the customer by the communications companies.

In a broader sense, Justice Thomas proposed that the FCC or other government organizations could be limited in their ability to raise money through taxes by applying the non-delegation doctrine.

Barrett retorted that imposing a cap would not work. “$3 trillion or $5 trillion, that’s just kind of throwing a number out there for the sake of throwing a number,” she continued.

Additionally, she had some pointed questions for Trent McCotter, the attorney for Consumers’ Research, a conservative organization that, according to its website, advocates for tax cuts and the abolition of “woke” politics.

When McCotter told the court, “At its heart this case is about taxation without representation,” Barrett countered, “That seems a little bit hollow. That seems like a meaningless exercise.”

In Supreme Court cases, Barrett and Thomas have frequently disagreed.

During oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that will determine whether or not those covered by a domestic violence civil restraining order have the right to own a gun, Barrett made it clear that she strongly disagreed with Thomas’s analysis.

Thomas questioned Rahimi’s attorney during oral arguments in June 2024 about why a criminal defendant ought to be covered by a civil remedy such as a restraining order.

A copy of the restraining order, which prohibits Rahimi from approaching his now-ex-girlfriend or her daughter, was immediately produced by Barrett.

She then went over Rahimi’s alleged offenses against his ex-girlfriend, which included intimidation and threats, as listed in the restraining order.

Barrett was expressing her disagreement with Thomas’s rigid constructionist interpretation of the Second Amendment by doing this. According to Thomas’s school of thought, readers should only consider the Constitution’s language, which states that American citizens’ right to bear arms is unaffected.

When Congress established the FCC in 1934, one of its main objectives was to “make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” This was stated by Elizabeth Prelogar, the then-Solicitor General, in her petition to the Supreme Court to hear the FCC case.

According to her, the FCC fund for underserved communities is contributing to the realization of universal communications.

In a statement issued on March 26, the law firm Boyden Gray, which represents Consumers’ Research, claimed that the FCC’s fund “has been riddled with fraud—millions misused on luxury condos, private jets, and club memberships.”

Even worse, despite spending billions, the Government Accountability Office discovered no quantifiable growth in [phone and internet] service.

Before issuing a written opinion, the Supreme Court will consider the case for several months. The court’s decision is probably not going to be made public until late 2024 or early 2025.