Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett uses her new memoir to reflect on historic cases and the work of the nation’s highest court while largely avoiding direct commentary on former President Donald Trump.
In an interview with The Associated Press accompanying the publication of "Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution," Barrett said "violence or threats of violence" against judges should not be the cost of public service and described a polarized climate that has "spilled over into a bad place". The book, published Tuesday by Sentinel, a conservative imprint of Penguin Random House, was written to make the court more accessible to non-lawyers; Barrett received a reported $2 million advance for the project.
Barrett, 53, the youngest justice on the court and the mother of seven, joined the high court in 2020 a little over a month after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. In the memoir she mentions the Republican president who nominated her mainly in connection with her confirmation and does not confront the question of his role in political polarization. She said the book does not address events of his second term because she was wrapping up writing as that term began.
The memoir addresses the court’s handling of a historic case in 2024 that spared a former president from prosecution for actions related to the 2020 election without naming him or the specifics of the case. Barrett wrote that the court must frame decisions about presidential power in the context of the office’s history and the presidents who came before and will come after, saying such cases "necessarily have to be detached from the current occupant of the office." She joined most of Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in that decision.
Barrett declined to join other judges who have publicly called on Trump to moderate his rhetoric toward the judiciary, but she said she and other justices have received death threats after the court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Barrett, who voted with the majority in that case, said the topic of what happens in private conference deliberations is off limits: "What happens in conference stays in conference," she told the AP.
In the book, Barrett defends the principle that the court should enforce constitutional limits where appropriate but otherwise leave matters to the democratic process. "If the Constitution places a matter beyond the reach of democratic majorities, the Court must vigilantly and fearlessly enforce that choice. Otherwise, the Court must leave the matter to the democratic process," she wrote, citing the reasoning behind Dobbs.
Barrett wrote appreciatively of the free-speech positions taken by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, noting their votes protecting flag burning as political speech despite their personal distaste for the act. That passage stands in contrast to a recent executive order by Trump directing the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute people for burning the American flag, an action at odds with a 1989 Supreme Court decision.
She also highlighted the constitutional clarity of the 22nd Amendment, which imposes a two-term presidential limit, writing that the amendment’s binding language "leaves no room for second-guessing." The memoir does not take up speculation about alternate term limits or presidential ambitions.
Barrett’s appointment completed a conservative supermajority that has overseen significant changes to constitutional jurisprudence in recent years, including the end of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education, decisions expanding gun rights, and rulings that have narrowed the scope of regulatory power. This year she has frequently been in the majority on emergency orders that allowed the former president to proceed with plans to remake parts of the federal government after lower courts had found some actions likely illegal.
Reflecting on her five years on the bench, Barrett said the most tangible change in her life has been heightened security and a loss of personal freedom. She recounted a small moment of normalcy at a family wedding, where she initially declined to dance but later began "twirling around" her niece until a family member asked that a recorded clip be deleted.
The memoir offers a mix of legal reflection and personal anecdote, with Barrett focusing on the institutional role of the Supreme Court, the mechanics of judicial decision-making and the importance of public understanding of the court’s work while steering clear of direct political critique of the president who appointed her.