Justice Amy Coney Barrett might have hinted at how she'll swing on Trump's legal battles

Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck analyzed a little-noticed Supreme Court occurrence in Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges that may reveal how Justice Amy Coney Barrett will rule on consequential Trump-era legal battles.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Barrett, advocated going further than the narrow procedural ruling to restrict federal employees' ability to challenge politically controlled administrative tribunals. The case centers on "channeling" — the doctrine requiring plaintiffs to exhaust designated administrative forums before reaching federal court.

The Trump administration weaponizes this doctrine across multiple fronts, including immigration cases, forcing challengers into executive-branch-controlled venues.

Vladeck warned Barrett's voluntary decision to join Thomas's aggressive pro-channeling position was "genuinely ominous," noting she acts "on purpose."

Barrett previously questioned Trump's birthright citizenship arguments, suggesting unpredictability.

However, Vladeck expressed concern about Barrett's positioning as the court reshapes legal access across multiple domains.

Watch the video below.

Your browser does not support the video tag.