The Barrett ‘Betrayal’ Myth

The Supreme Court's recent term concluded with a sharp backlash against Justice Amy Coney Barrett from some conservative quarters, centered around the Court's ruling in Trump v. Barbara, decided on the final day of the session. This decision, which addressed birthright citizenship, sparked intense criticism online, with social media platforms flooded with accusations that Barrett had shifted left. Groups such as the College Republicans from her alma mater and former employer, Notre Dame, labeled her an “absolute disgrace,” while Representative Nancy Mace claimed she “should be removed from the Bench.” Notably, these criticisms lacked any substantial examination of Barrett’s broader judicial record. The frustration surrounding Trump v. Barbara is understandable, particularly among conservatives who prioritize immigration enforcement and anticipated a different outcome. However, the justices do not determine the results of cases based on whether their preferred side wins or loses. Instead, fidelity to the Constitution should be the primary measure of judicial performance. The originalist majority demonstrated a commitment to applying constitutional principles in complex scenarios, adhering to the text rather than personal desires. It is essential to recognize that no judicial philosophy is infallible, and even leading originalists have occasionally erred in their methodologies. Justice Antonin Scalia, a key figure in promoting originalism, authored the majority opinion in Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which significantly weakened free-exercise protections. This led to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Scalia also advocated for Chevron deference, allowing agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes, and contributed to the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), enabling federal oversight of local marijuana cultivation. Despite these contributions, Justice Clarence Thomas, a favored originalist, dissented in Raich. However, he later joined the majority in National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services, expanding Chevron deference beyond Scalia’s initial stance. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito, another prominent originalist, missed opportunities to reinforce the nondelegation doctrine, a cornerstone of separation of powers. While several Republican appointees have gradually moved toward judicial activism, embracing the "living Constitution" approach, Justice Barrett has remained steadfast in her originalist principles. She played a pivotal role in reversing landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey through Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and in dismantling race-based affirmative action policies in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Additionally, she supported the elimination of Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, marking a significant shift in administrative law. Beyond major rulings, Barrett has consistently upheld originalist interpretations in First Amendment cases. She supported a web designer’s right to decline service for websites violating her religious beliefs, protected parental rights to exclude children from sexually explicit content in public schools, upheld state requirements for age verification of pornography, and defended political speech. Her opinions have also reinforced Second Amendment protections, including in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen (2022) and Wolford v. Lopez this term. Barrett has also resisted activist interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause, rejecting attempts to limit the scope of constitutional safeguards. These consistent applications of originalism underscore her reliability as a jurist committed to constitutional fidelity. As the Court moves forward, the focus will likely remain on how justices navigate complex legal questions while maintaining adherence to foundational principles.