It seems to be a foregone conclusion that federal Appeals Court judge Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed as the next Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court. That is quite a feat for a nominee who failed to answer some of the most basic questions posed to her.
But it wasn’t the questions that she he was asked, but the ones that were not; those that linger – particularly about certain childcare practices of the group of which she is a member with, People of Praise.
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee shied away from asking any religion-related questions, perhaps out of fear of being accused of “anti-Catholicism.” But it was not her Catholicism that was the issue. People of Praise is an ecumenical group. The issue at hand may have not been one of faith but labor law violations.
Prior to their marriage Judge Barrett and her husband both lived in a People of Praise group home. As a recent article in The Guardian explained, this group home belonged to People of Praise’s founder, Kevin Ranaghan.
Former members have told me that unmarried women living in these group homes may have been put to work as nannies. One said “Yes, they would absolutely have unpaid childcare from community members. Community members help other members with a variety of services like rides to the airport, meals after childbirth or illness, childcare, legal representation, discounted car repairs... everything.”
If Judge Barrett and her husband also took in students and other young members at a People of Praise group house, they too may have or might still be quite possibly putting these young members to work as uncompensated nannies. Indeed, that could conceivably be the case even if such members resided elsewhere. These are questions for which we have no answer because People of Praise’s practices received no attention at all.
Another, more recent Guardian article recounts:
Proponents of the faith community have said in other press reports that they are misunderstood, and that it is a close-knit community that seeks to support other members “financially and materially and spiritually”.
But former members paint a different picture. They allege intense subjugation of women by the community leaders; control of members’ lives and decisions, including marriage, living arrangements, and child rearing; and in one case, the mishandling of allegations of sexual abuse.
Even so, Judge Barrett and People of Praise may have broken the law. A labor lawyer told me, “The failure to pay persons for work may violate many state and federal laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and state minimum wage laws. It is not really possible to determine how strong these claims might be without knowing factual details.”
They may also have not broken the law.
“And it is important to keep in mind that these statutory mandates may very well not overcome a constitutional hurdle based on the Free Exercise Clause. If the childcare services rendered by women in the People Of Praise home were integrally related to religious doctrine and practice, a strong First Amendment argument might be asserted in opposition to the argument that labor standards statutes have been violated. Again, the factual details matter.”
Unfortunately, senators sitting on Judiciary Committee didn’t ask the questions that would have elicited these facts. Indeed, conservatives succeeded in casting any such inquiries to be about Catholicism when they were not. Instead they would have been about fair labor practices.
We have seen the confirmations of many nominees for federal jobs across recent administrations go down because they failed to respect federal laws regarding, for example, paying Social Security for their domestic employees. Just because Barrett has lived in an unusual religious community, does not mean that she should be allowed to benefit from a double standard.