Amy Coney Barrett Presses Lawyer on Hypothetical Money Damages in Supreme Court Case

Supreme Court Oral Arguments

• 📌 The case, Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, involves oral arguments where Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett focused on a lawyer's responses.
• 🎯 Barrett pressed the lawyer regarding Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch's hypothetical questions about money damages.

Liability and Non-Recipients

• ⚖️ The prevailing rule in federal circuits, including the Fifth Circuit, did not deny clear notice but deemed it unconstitutional, treating officers as non-recipients.
• ❓ Barrett sought to clarify if any cases held a non-recipient of funds individually liable under a federal statute, excluding bribery cases.
• 💡 The lawyer admitted to not having a case with the exact factual scenario but argued it was a lesser included scenario of existing cases like Selenus and Sabry.

Spending Clause and Title IX

• 💰 Barrett pushed for a yes or no answer on whether the lawyer's theory would hold a coach liable under Title IX in Gorsuch's hypothetical, assuming a valid condition attached by Congress.
• ✅ The lawyer ultimately affirmed that under the spending power, Congress could enforce such conditions, leading to liability for the coach in the hypothetical.
• 🗣️ Barrett emphasized the need for the lawyer to own the logical consequences of their theory, even if it leads to broader implications beyond the current case's egregious facts.