The U.S. Supreme Court’s newest justice is showing signs that she’s more aligned with John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh in the center than she is with her other conservative colleagues, refusing to support broad rulings that could shake the court’s credibility.
Amy Coney Barrett is “starting to show her stripes” as a moderate who prefers small movements in the law, not huge shifts, South Texas College of Law Houston professor Josh Blackman said.
Roberts, the chief justice, is viewed as an institutionalist who wants to conserve the public’s confidence in the court. So far, he favors incremental shifts in the law. “That’s been one of the Chief’s primary goals all along,” said Case Western Reserve law professor Jonathan Adler.
He recently gained an ally in Kavanaugh in this pursuit, and it appears Barrett may join their ranks.
The court as a whole has has largely agreed in cases this year. The unanimous decision in the LGBT case was the 25th time the justices were unanimous in 41 rulings so far this term. There are 15 to go in coming days.
But the big test for Barrett will be next term starting in October when the justices will tackle hot-button issues like guns, abortion, and possibly affirmative action.
“It is a very conservative Court, even if we will only get glimpses of it this year,” said UC Berkeley law school Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
Kicking the Can
In the Obamacare case, California v. Texas, the 7-2 majority handed down a procedural ruling to avoid undoing the landmark 2010 law. The justices said red states led by Texas didn’t have a legal basis—or standing—to challenge it.
Only Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch would have voted to gut the act, long a priority of Republicans.
The LGBT ruling, while unanimous in its outcome, was splintered in its reasoning. Hiding under the 9-0 breakdown was a dispute about whether to overturn the court’s divisive ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, which sparked the passage of the bipartisan Religious Freedom Protection Act and mini state versions across the country.
The court in Smith refused to require an exception from Oregon’s prohibition on peyote, saying religious objectors don’t get a free pass on “generally applicable” laws.
On opposite ends in the court’s LGBT ruling were the liberal justices—Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—along with Roberts, who wanted to uphold the court’s precedent in Smith, and the court’s most conservative members—Clarence Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—who wanted it overruled once and for all.
In the middle was Barrett, joined by Kavanaugh, who acknowledged Smith‘s shortcomings but was concerned with the fallout should the court overrule it. “Yet what should replace Smith?” Barrett asked in a short concurrence.
Both cases were a punt, Blackman said, with the issues likely to return to the court at some point in the future.
End of the World
But the ACA and LGBT cases, along with the extraordinary agreement all term, suggests a majority of the justices don’t think it’s the right time to make major changes in the law.
“In the throes of everything"—the pandemic, Barrett’s first term, Kavanaugh’s biting confirmation, calls for Breyer to retire, and the caustic 2020 presidential election—"they didn’t want to shock the world this year,” Segall said.
“Preserving the court’s own political capital is incredibly important to the justices because they know their only capital is the confidence of the American people,” he added.
Adler said the court has developed a sort of 3-3-3 split—that is, three liberals, three conservative justices willing to chuck precedents they don’t agree with, and three conservative justices hesitant to overturn cases they may disagree with. Roberts, Kavanaugh, and now, apparently, Barrett make up that last group.
Adler said that split will create some interesting pressures for the three justices in the middle next term, when—as Segall said—"the world will end.”
The end of the world was a reference—in part—to the court’s abortion case, which could call into question the landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade and later cases.
The ACA and LGBT rulings are, however, not the complete story on Barrett, who isn’t even a full year into what’s likely to be a decades-long tenure.
Barrett’s nomination raised questions about her personal views on abortion and whether they would influence her decisions. In a 1998 law review article, she wrote that abortion and euthanasia “take away innocent life” and that abortion is “always immoral.”
On guns, some have seen a willingness in Barrett to go further even than the late Justice Antonin Scalia in protecting Second Amendment rights.
And along with the blockbuster issues the justices are set to tackle next term, the court still has some consequential cases to decide, including a free speech case dealing with corporate disclosures and a property dispute involving labor organizing.
Adler said he’d expect to see some splintered rulings this term.
Moreover, “we have seen important 6-3 decisions” in cases like Jones v. Mississippi and Edwards v. Vannoy, Chemerinsky said, referring to cases on life sentences for juvenile defendants and unanimous jury verdicts for criminal trials.
Both divided the justices ideological, with Barrett siding with her conservative colleagues.