Justice Amy Coney Barrett defends overturning Roe v. Wade and reveals Supreme Court dynamics in new book

In her forthcoming memoir ‘Listening to the Law,’ Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivers a forceful defense of her vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, arguing that the 1973 decision constituted an improper judicial imposition on democratic processes. Barrett contends that the court’s role is to interpret the Constitution based on historical traditions, not to create new rights, and she asserts that abortion lacks the deep-rooted history of other fundamental liberties. Barrett elaborates on her participation in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, where she joined Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion. She echoes Alito’s view that Roe was an exercise of ‘raw judicial power’ and emphasizes that the evidence does not support abortion as a traditionally protected right. In fact, she notes, abortion was long forbidden in American law, making the court’s intervention in Roe misguided. The justice provides candid glimpses into the Supreme Court’s operations, describing the painstaking process of drafting opinions and securing consensus. She shares an anecdote about her chambers celebrating with champagne when colleagues quickly joined a tricky opinion she had written, highlighting the collaborative efforts behind the scenes. However, she also acknowledges the frustrations of narrowing opinions to maintain majorities, often deleting points she would prefer to make. Reflecting on the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, Barrett discusses the increased security measures and public protests that ensued, including a personal moment where her son saw her returning home in a bulletproof vest. Despite these pressures, she maintains that the court must remain focused on legal principles rather than political outcomes. Addressing allegations of religious bias, Barrett defends her impartiality, citing her vote to uphold the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev despite her personal opposition. She argues that judges of all backgrounds must adhere to the law, not their moral convictions, and she dismisses the notion that her Catholic faith uniquely compromises her judgment. Barrett also touches on the court’s emergency docket, noting that while the justices must address urgent applications, the judicial system benefits from full deliberation. She reveals little about specific cases or internal deliberations, adhering to court traditions of confidentiality. The memoir, set for release on September 9 and reportedly secured with a $2 million advance, aims to make the court’s workings more accessible to the public. Barrett explains her textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution and emphasizes the importance of judicial restraint. As a pivotal figure in the court’s conservative majority, Barrett’s insights come amid ongoing debates over abortion rights and the Supreme Court’s influence on American society. Her book offers a rare perspective on the deliberations that shape landmark decisions and the justices’ efforts to navigate complex legal and political landscapes.