Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Tump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, participated in a “mock” ruling exercise on the Affordable Care Act before Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgPresident Trump, Melania Trump test positive for COVID-19 Barrett participated in ‘mock’ Supreme Court ruling exercise on Affordable Care Act before Ginsburg’s death: report Manchin becomes first Democrat to meet with Trump’s Supreme Court pick MORE‘s death.
Her position on the moot court over the Affordable Care Act, also called ObamaCare, mostly went against the Trump administration’s stance, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Some Democratic critics have argued Barrett’s conservative background and Catholic faith could compromise her decisions on the court bench. However, her mock ruling over the issue indicates contrary to those concerns.
The mock trial over the Obamacare appeal lawsuit backed by Trump and Texas Republicans was conducted one week before the death of Ginsburg, whom Barrett has been nominated to replace.
None of the participants on the eight-judge panel of the mock trial ruled in favor of the administration and Republican states’ request to strike down the ACA; however, five of the judges ruled that the law’s individual mandate, which Congress already effectively nullified, was unconstitutional.
It is unknown which side Barrett was on because the participants’ votes were not revealed, according to a person who viewed the session and declined to be identified.
Barrett has been publicly critical of the Supreme Court’s opinion to uphold the act.
She wrote in an a 2017 essay that Chief Justice John Roberts “pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.”
The mock trial was held at William & Mary College, where law professor Allison Orr Larsen told attendees, “You should not take the questions we ask or the arguments we make as personal endorsements,” according to a post on the school’s website.
Mock courts are meant to be educational role-playing displays and do not indicate or telegraph how a judge might vote in an actual scenario.