American Family Association Action (AFA Action), is a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to advancing biblical, family values in society and government by educating and influencing public policy. AFA Action is also the Governmental Affairs Affiliate of American Family Association (AFA).
District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri
Click below to download more research data for Sarah Pitlyk.
* You have successfully registered your email address.
Judge Pitlyk is a Catholic Christian.[1] Pitlyk attended Catholic Schools in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.[2] She completed a B.A. in philosophy at Boston College, a Catholic institution, and an M.A. in philosophy at Georgetown, also a Catholic institution.[3] Pitlyk was a member of the Holy Redeemer Catholic Women’s League from 2018 through the time of her Senate Questionnaire in 2019.[4] Pitlyk is married to her husband Mark, and the couple has four children.[5] Pitlyk’s work at Thomas More Society is a positive indicator of a Biblical, conservative, and constitutionalist worldview.
[1] Archdiocesan News Briefs, St. Louis Review (Aug. 22, 2019), https://www.archstl.org/archdiocesan-news-briefs-4334.
[2] Archdiocesan News Briefs, St. Louis Review (Aug. 22, 2019), https://www.archstl.org/archdiocesan-news-briefs-4334.
[3] S. Questionnaire, p. 1. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sarah%20Pitlyk%20Senate%20Questionnaire%20-%20PUBLIC.pdf
[4] S. Questionnaire, p. 5. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Sarah%20Pitlyk%20Senate%20Questionnaire%20-%20PUBLIC.pdf
[5]Archdiocesan News Briefs, St. Louis Review (Aug. 22, 2019), https://www.archstl.org/archdiocesan-news-briefs- 4334.
Judge Pitlyk has expressed a need for judicial restraint and has rejected judicial activism. She noted, “It is important for a judge to decide cases based solely on the applicable law, leaving policy decisions to the elected political branches.”[6] Pitlyk does not describe herself as exclusively an originalist or textualist. She believes it is appropriate to consider the original public meaning of text. Pitlyk declared, “I would not describe myself as exclusively an ‘originalist’ or ‘textualist,’ especially since the meaning of those terms are contested. I do believe that it’s appropriate to consider the original public meaning of constitutional and statutory texts when interpreting and applying them…”[7] She has also said she would follow SCOTUS precedent in considering changes to society when ruling, explaining, “[T]he U.S. Supreme Court has explained how changes in society can be relevant to judicial considerations in a variety of contexts. If confirmed, I would follow those precedents that consider evidence of changed social understandings, including Virginia and Obergefell....” [8]
[6] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Booker, Question 8 (bold and emphasis added). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
[7] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Booker, Question 5 (bold and emphasis added). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
[8] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Whitehouse, Question 4(a) (bold and emphasis added). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
No information has been located on this topic.
Pitlyk filed amicus briefs in two cases challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. She has said "[T]he Supreme Court made clear in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that such conflicts, at least involving ‘closely held corporations,’ are subject to the standard set out in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.A § 2000bb-1: A law may not substantially burden a business owner’s exercise of religion unless (a) it furthers a compelling governmental interest, and (b) it is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.”[9] Judge Pitlyk believes the Constitution and RFRA protect religious freedom. National Catholic Register reported, “A Catholic, Pitlyk clerked for Kavanaugh during the D.C. Circuit's 2010-2011 term. And though she did not work on religious-freedom cases, she was inspired by Kavanaugh’s efforts to ‘hew as closely as possible to the text of the law,’ ‘On religious-liberty cases,’ Pitlyk told the Register, this practice will ‘yield decisions that are favorable to religious believers,’ because the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provide strong protections for believers and church-affiliated institutions.”[10]
[9] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Whitehouse, Question 9(a) (bold and emphasis added). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
[10] Joan Frawley Desmond, “Will Brett Kavanaugh Protect Religious Freedom?,” National Catholic Register, https://www.ncregister.com/news/will-brett-kavanaugh-protect-religious-freedom (bold and emphasis added).
Pitlyk believes embryos are human beings but has not argued that those who treat embryos should be prosecuted. Senator Feinstein quoted Pitlyk’s argument concerning frozen embryos: “There is ‘no federal nor state law [that] gives the biological father or anyone else the right to direct the death of his children - embryonic, gestational, or otherwise.’”[11] Pitlyk has stated, “I have never argued in a legal brief or personally, that anyone should be criminally prosecuted for the treatment of embryos.”[12] Judge Pitlyk defended the Iowa statute banning abortions at 6-8 weeks,[13] and believes federal funds should not subsidize abortion.[14] She also believes Roe v. Wade was a product of judicial activism. Pitlyk said, “The family of concerns that I described as ‘activism’ boil down to the concerns that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence goes beyond the judiciary’s appropriate role of interpreting the law and instead engages in the legislative function of setting social policy.”[15] Pitlyk represented David Daleiden in several cases dealing with the filming of Planned Parenthood employees and distribution of films indicating that Planned Parenthood engaged in the selling of infant body parts.[16]
[11] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Feinstein, Question 2 (bold and emphasis added). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
[12] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Hirono, Question 2(c) (bold and emphasis added). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
[13] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Feinstein, Question 2(c).
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
[14] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Feinstein, Question 3.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
[15] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Hirono, Question 7(b) (bold and emphasis added). https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
[16] Pitlyk responses to Questions for Response from Senator Feinstein, Question 7. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pitlyk%20Responses%20to%20QFRs.pdf
No information has been located on this topic.
Pitlyk wrote an amicus brief in support of a ballot initiative to ban affirmative action. The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. wrote, "Ms. Pitlyk asserted that considering race in education–as well as in employment, and contracting–only serves ‘to entrench racial prejudices.’ Indeed, Ms. Pitlyk claimed that ‘state-imposed racial classifications pose a basic affront to the dignity of the persons classified’ and that ‘[m]embers of preferred groups suffer from the unjust stigma that they are inherently incapable of competing on an even footing.’”[18]
[18] The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), Letter to Senator McConnell and Senator Schumer (Dec. 3, 2019), at p. 6. https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Letter-Opposing-Sarah-Pitlyk.pdf (bold and emphasis added). See also Brief for the American Civil Rights Union and the American Civil Rights Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2810, at p. 7, https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/27f0235e-ff55-4e32-9a02-c64d4c10dd9c/?context=1530671.
No information has been located on this topic.
Pitlyk’s career before her judicial confirmation centered around pro-life litigation. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights wrote, “Ms. Pitlyk has dedicated her career to restricting reproductive rights and healthcare access. She works at an anti-abortion organization called the Thomas More Society, and previously worked at a law firm dedicated to attacking reproductive freedom. On her Senate questionnaire, where judicial nominees are required to list their ten most significant cases, the top eight cases listed by Ms. Pitlyk all involved efforts to restrict reproductive rights.”[19]
[19] “Oppose the Confirmation of Sarah Pitlyk to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (Sept. 24, 2019),https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-sarah-pitlyk-to-the-u-s-district-court-for-the-eastern-district-of-missouri/ (bold and emphasis added).
No information has been located on this topic.
Best meets the ten principles of a constitutional judge.
Rating: GreyNeutral. Record is not as fully developed. Cannot be rated as “green” or “red.”
Rating: RedFails to meet the ten principles of a constitutional judge.
AFA Action is a non-profit 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to advancing biblical, family values in society and government by educating and influencing public policy. AFA Action is also the Governmental Affairs Affiliate of American Family Association.