Justice Amy Coney Barrett has quietly become one of the most unpredictable members of the U.S. Supreme Court, often leaving observers and her colleagues guessing.
Newsweek reported that over the past three and a half years, Barrett has demonstrated a tendency to chart her own path, sometimes aligning with her conservative roots, while at other times making decisions that suggest a more centrist position.
Barrett’s journey to the Supreme Court began in September 2020, following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Nominated by then-President Donald Trump, she was widely expected to be a staunch conservative voice on the bench.
Early on, Barrett did not disappoint her conservative supporters. During her first year on the Court, her voting record aligned with her conservative colleagues 70% of the time, a trend that slightly increased to 73% in her second year.
In these early years, Barrett quickly established herself as one of the Court’s most conservative justices. Her votes reflected a strong conservative bent, particularly in landmark cases such as the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a ruling that removed federal protection for abortion rights. This decision cemented her place within the Court’s conservative bloc.
However, as her tenure has progressed, Barrett’s decisions have shown a more nuanced approach. By her third year, Barrett’s alignment with conservative justices dropped to 56%, indicating a shift in her judicial reasoning.
This evolution has become particularly evident in a series of rulings where she has distanced herself from the hardline conservative positions of her colleagues.
One of the first signs of Barrett’s growing independence came when she voted to maintain access to the abortion pill mifepristone, a decision that surprised many given her prior stance on abortion-related issues.
Similarly, she joined a ruling allowing Idaho hospitals to continue providing emergency abortions, further showcasing her willingness to diverge from a purely conservative agenda.
Barrett has also demonstrated her independence in cases unrelated to abortion. During her first term, she voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a key component of the U.S. healthcare system that has been a frequent target of conservative opposition. This vote marked her as a justice capable of considering the broader implications of her decisions.
More recently, Barrett’s potential as a swing vote was highlighted in several high-profile cases in 2024. In March, she took a surprising stance in a Fourteenth Amendment case that challenged Donald Trump’s candidacy in the 2024 presidential race.
By distancing herself from her conservative colleagues, Barrett indicated her willingness to break from party lines on constitutional matters.
In June 2024, Barrett once again broke ranks with her conservative peers in a case related to the federal obstruction statute and January 6 defendants. Her decision in this case further solidified her reputation as a justice who carefully weighs each case on its merits, rather than adhering strictly to ideological expectations.
In July 2024, Barrett made headlines by advocating for a more nuanced application of presidential immunity. In this case, she endorsed parts of a dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the Court’s liberal wing.
While Barrett largely agreed with the majority opinion, her decision to support a narrower interpretation of immunity demonstrated her commitment to a balanced approach.
Alison LaCroix, a legal scholar, noted Barrett’s careful consideration in this case, observing that she was not willing to grant the president broad executive power without question. LaCroix pointed out that Barrett’s questioning of the former president’s lawyers showed her skepticism and desire to establish herself as a centrist force on the Court.
Despite her occasional departures from conservative orthodoxy, Barrett has remained a key player in several major rulings that align with conservative principles.
She has joined the majority in decisions that expanded gun rights, limited the powers of the federal government, and banned affirmative action in college admissions. Additionally, Barrett has supported rulings that strengthened free speech protections, even when such decisions conflicted with anti-discrimination laws.
Dan Urman, a legal analyst, remarked that it often takes several years for a new justice to find their footing on the Supreme Court. He noted that Barrett seems to be a principled conservative but with the potential to act as a swing vote, possibly even more so than Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
As Barrett continues to navigate her role on the Supreme Court, legal experts suggest that her vote will increasingly be a critical target for advocates and lawyers presenting cases before the Court.
Her ability to issue more moderate rulings, while still aligning with conservative values in key cases, positions her as a pivotal figure in the Court’s ideological landscape.
Alison LaCroix highlighted this growing trend, noting that Barrett’s nuanced decisions may lead to her becoming the focal point for those seeking to sway the Court’s rulings. This mirrors the influence once held by former Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, who were often seen as the swing votes in closely contested cases.
