Content of the article continued
In a dissent, Barrett wrote that in the absence of evidence that the man was violent, disqualifying him permanently from owning a gun violated the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear guns. .
“The story is common sense: it shows that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from owning firearms,” Barrett wrote. “But that power only extends to people who are dangerous.”
SEXUAL ASSAULT AT CAMPUS
Barrett drafted a 2019 ruling on behalf of a unanimous panel of three 7th Circuit judges that allowed male students accused of sexual misconduct to challenge the way campus courts have handled their cases. The case involved a student at Purdue University in Indiana accused of sexually assaulting a female student.
Barrett has restarted a lawsuit brought by the accused student who said the university put him through a mock process in which he could not properly defend himself.
“The case against him boiled down to a ‘he said / she said’ -Purdue had to decide whether to believe ‘the accused or the accused man,” Barrett wrote, adding that it is plausible that the Purdue officials chose to believe the accuser “because she is a woman” and not to believe the accused “because he is a man.”
The decision enabled the student to present a theory that Purdue’s treatment of him constituted impermissible discrimination on the basis of sex.
In June, Barrett said in a dissenting opinion that she would have let one of Trump’s sweeping immigration policies go ahead in Illinois.
The litigation revolved around the “public charge” rule, a policy of denying legal permanent residence to certain immigrants deemed likely to need government assistance in the future.
Barrett expressed his dissent when a panel of three judges from the 7th Circuit voted to end politics in Illinois.