In her first term on the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett has already made a name for herself as a jurist with an independent streak. Barrett, who was appointed to the Court by former President Donald Trump in October 2020, has quickly emerged as a key swing vote on some of the most controversial cases of the term.
One of Barrett’s most notable decisions came in the case of California v. Texas, in which the Court considered the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In a surprising move, Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberal justices in upholding the ACA, rejecting a challenge brought by a group of Republican-led states. Barrett’s vote was seen as a significant departure from her conservative colleagues, many of whom had previously expressed skepticism about the ACA.
Barrett’s independent streak was also on display in another high-profile case, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, in which the Court considered whether a Catholic foster care agency could refuse to work with same-sex couples. Barrett joined the majority in ruling in favor of the agency, but she also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which she emphasized the importance of religious freedom and expressed concern about the potential impact of the Court’s decision on LGBTQ rights.
Barrett’s willingness to break ranks with her fellow conservatives has earned her praise from some quarters and criticism from others. Supporters argue that Barrett’s independent streak shows her commitment to judicial independence and her willingness to follow the law wherever it may lead. Critics, on the other hand, worry that Barrett’s decisions could undermine important legal protections, particularly in cases involving civil rights and social justice.
Regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum, there is no denying that Justice Amy Coney Barrett has quickly established herself as a force to be reckoned with on the Supreme Court. Her willingness to chart her own course and follow her own legal reasoning sets her apart from many of her colleagues and suggests that she will continue to play a key role in shaping the Court’s decisions for years to come.