Amy Coney Barrett Takes Issue With Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court Move
Amy Coney Barrett Takes Issue With Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court Move
Published Mar 27, 2025 at 1:55 PM EDT
Amy Coney Barrett has taken issue with a new tax idea suggested by fellow Supreme Court judge, Clarence Thomas.
Why It Matters
Conservatives are keen to see a revival of the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from handing over its core legislative powers to federal agencies or other nonelected officials.
On March 27, Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee, expressed major concerns about reviving the doctrine, which hasn't been used since the 1930s and could severely weaken the power of government agencies.
It also plays into a wider narrative about Coney Barrett's place on the court, as she treads the middle ground on many social issues, away from the hard-line conservatism of Thomas.
Newsweek sought email comment from the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday.
What To Know
On March 26, the Supreme Court considered the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, in which it had to consider the legality of an FCC fund that compels communications companies to pay for phone lines and internet cable to be installed in rural and economically disadvantaged areas.
The communications companies then pass on much of that extra cost to the consumer.
Speaking broadly, Justice Thomas suggested that the non-delegation doctrine could be used to place a cap on how much the FCC or other government agencies could raise through tax dollars.
Barrett countered that setting a cap would be ineffective. "$3 trillion or $5 trillion, that's just kind of throwing a number out there for the sake of throwing a number," she said.
She also had some sharp questions for Trent McCotter, the lawyer representing Consumers' Research, a conservative group that seeks lower taxes and end "woke" politics, according to its website.
When McCotter told the court: "At its heart this case is about taxation without representation," Coney Barrett countered: "That seems a little bit hollow. That seems like a meaningless exercise."
Supreme Court Clashes
As Newsweek previously reported, Coney Barrett and Thomas have clashed frequently in Supreme Court cases.
Coney Barrett showed her strong disapproval of Thomas' analysis during oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that will decide whether people under a domestic violence civil restraining order have a right to own a gun.
Gun Control
During oral arguments in June, 2024, Thomas asked Rahimi's lawyer why a criminal defendant should be subject to a civil remedy like a restraining order.
Coney Barrett immediately pulled out a copy of the restraining order, which forbids Rahimi from coming near his now ex-girlfriend or her daughter.
She then read from the restraining order's list of Rahimi's alleged crimes against his ex-girlfriend, including threats and intimidation.
By doing so, Coney Barrett was signaling that she does not agree with Thomas' strict constructionist view of the Second Amendment. Thomas' school of thought suggests that readers should look only at the wording of the Constitution, which placed no impediments on the rights of U.S. citizens to own a gun.
In its petition to the Supreme Court to hear the FCC case, the then Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, wrote that when Congress set up the FCC in 1934, one of its core goals 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."
She wrote that the FCC fund to help disadvantaged communities is helping to achieve the goal of universal communications.
Boyden Gray, the law firm, representing Consumers' Reserach, released a statement on March 26 in which it alleged that the FCC's fund "has been riddled with fraud—millions misused on luxury condos, private jets, and club memberships. Worse, the Government Accountability Office found no measurable expansion of [phone and internet] service despite billions spent."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will spend several months considering the case before issuing a written opinion. It will likely be late 2024 or early 2025 before the court releases its decision.
Amy Coney Barrett Takes Issue With Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court Move
Amy Coney Barrett Takes Issue With Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court Move
Published Mar 27, 2025 at 1:55 PM EDT
Amy Coney Barrett has taken issue with a new tax idea suggested by fellow Supreme Court judge, Clarence Thomas.
Why It Matters
Conservatives are keen to see a revival of the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from handing over its core legislative powers to federal agencies or other nonelected officials.
On March 27, Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee, expressed major concerns about reviving the doctrine, which hasn't been used since the 1930s and could severely weaken the power of government agencies.
It also plays into a wider narrative about Coney Barrett's place on the court, as she treads the middle ground on many social issues, away from the hard-line conservatism of Thomas.
Newsweek sought email comment from the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday.
What To Know
On March 26, the Supreme Court considered the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers' Research, in which it had to consider the legality of an FCC fund that compels communications companies to pay for phone lines and internet cable to be installed in rural and economically disadvantaged areas.
The communications companies then pass on much of that extra cost to the consumer.
Speaking broadly, Justice Thomas suggested that the non-delegation doctrine could be used to place a cap on how much the FCC or other government agencies could raise through tax dollars.
Barrett countered that setting a cap would be ineffective. "$3 trillion or $5 trillion, that's just kind of throwing a number out there for the sake of throwing a number," she said.
She also had some sharp questions for Trent McCotter, the lawyer representing Consumers' Research, a conservative group that seeks lower taxes and end "woke" politics, according to its website.
When McCotter told the court: "At its heart this case is about taxation without representation," Coney Barrett countered: "That seems a little bit hollow. That seems like a meaningless exercise."
Supreme Court Clashes
As Newsweek previously reported, Coney Barrett and Thomas have clashed frequently in Supreme Court cases.
Coney Barrett showed her strong disapproval of Thomas' analysis during oral arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case that will decide whether people under a domestic violence civil restraining order have a right to own a gun.
Gun Control
During oral arguments in June, 2024, Thomas asked Rahimi's lawyer why a criminal defendant should be subject to a civil remedy like a restraining order.
Coney Barrett immediately pulled out a copy of the restraining order, which forbids Rahimi from coming near his now ex-girlfriend or her daughter.
She then read from the restraining order's list of Rahimi's alleged crimes against his ex-girlfriend, including threats and intimidation.
By doing so, Coney Barrett was signaling that she does not agree with Thomas' strict constructionist view of the Second Amendment. Thomas' school of thought suggests that readers should look only at the wording of the Constitution, which placed no impediments on the rights of U.S. citizens to own a gun.
In its petition to the Supreme Court to hear the FCC case, the then Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, wrote that when Congress set up the FCC in 1934, one of its core goals 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."
She wrote that the FCC fund to help disadvantaged communities is helping to achieve the goal of universal communications.
Boyden Gray, the law firm, representing Consumers' Reserach, released a statement on March 26 in which it alleged that the FCC's fund "has been riddled with fraud—millions misused on luxury condos, private jets, and club memberships. Worse, the Government Accountability Office found no measurable expansion of [phone and internet] service despite billions spent."
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will spend several months considering the case before issuing a written opinion. It will likely be late 2024 or early 2025 before the court releases its decision.