The Impact of Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Key Supreme Court Debates

Chief Justice John Roberts may play a crucial role in two important cases on abortion and presidential immunity heard by the Supreme Court this week. However, it was Justice Amy Coney Barrett who stood out during the arguments.

During the hearings, the 52-year-old former law professor actively engaged with a lawyer defending Idaho’s strict abortion ban. At one point, she expressed her surprise at his explanation of how the law actually functioned. In another instance, she prompted an attorney representing former President Donald Trump to make a series of significant concessions.

President Donald Trump is seen conversing with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as he leaves following his State of the Union speech to a combined session of Congress at Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, in January 2018.

President Donald Trump talks with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as he departs after delivering his State of the Union address to a joint session of the Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, in January 2018.

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Related article

John Roberts is not pleased with the previous ruling against Trump. So, what comes next?

Barrett, who is Trump's third nominee, has consistently sided with the conservative bloc since joining the court shortly before the 2020 presidential election. Despite the court often dividing along ideological lines in major cases, Barrett was able to influence the final arguments of the current term while also maintaining some flexibility in her decisions.

"Are you here for a reason?" she asked Idaho's lawyer, wondering if there was a real issue for the court to decide on.

During her brief time on the bench, Barrett has occasionally found herself in the middle of her more conservative peers and the liberal justices. This was evident recently when Barrett sought to find a balanced approach regarding the debate over whether Trump could be removed from Colorado's presidential ballot due to his actions on January 6, 2021.

Her participation in the abortion debates on Wednesday went viral on social media, with the Center for Reproductive Rights also sharing it – a legal advocacy group Barrett typically does not align with. Just two years ago, Barrett was among the five votes required to reverse Roe v. Wade.

According to Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, there have been several indications during oral arguments this term, particularly in recent sessions, that Justice Barrett is becoming more at ease not only with herself but also in carving out a position, even in high-profile cases, that places her somewhere between the more conservative and more progressive factions on the court.

He mentioned that by the end of this term, her vote will likely play a crucial role in the court's significant and controversial decisions. Barrett questions Trump on his claims of absolute immunity.

Barrett, as the second-least senior justice, can be found sitting at the far end of the Supreme Court’s mahogany bench. Despite her position, she played a significant role in the crucial moments of the nearly three-hour oral argument on Thursday concerning Trump’s claims of broad immunity in special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case.

During the argument, Barrett, along with other justices, managed to get Trump attorney John Sauer to acknowledge that a president’s “private” actions do not qualify for immunity, in contrast to his “official” actions. This marked a departure from previous arguments made by Trump, which sought “absolute” immunity for a wider range of acts. In a pivotal moment, Barrett proceeded to guide Sauer through a series of hypothetical questions that closely resembled the allegations in the special counsel’s indictment.

This artist sketch depicts Michael Dreeben, counselor to special counsel Jack Smith, right, as he argues before the Supreme Court on Thursday, April 25, 2024.

This artist sketch depicts Michael Dreeben, counselor to special counsel Jack Smith, right, as he argues before the Supreme Court on Thursday, April 25, 2024.

Dana Verkouteren/AP

Related article

Meet the talented sketch artists who add vibrancy to the Supreme Court since cameras are not permitted inside. According to Smith, if certain actions are deemed private rather than official presidential duties, he believes they should be presented to a jury for consideration.

Barrett suggested that a party sought out a private attorney who was willing to make false claims of election fraud to lead their election challenges. This seemed to refer to Rudy Giuliani, identified as "co-conspirator 1" in Smith's indictment by CNN.

Barrett then asked Sauer, "Private?"

Sauer admitted, "That sounds private to me."

Barrett revisited the topic while interviewing the special counsel's attorney, Michael Dreeben. During their conversation, she mentioned that the prosecutors are keen on expediting the case to trial and even hinted at a possible plan to achieve this.

Barrett mentioned that the special counsel is eager to move quickly. He questioned whether the special counsel could focus on private conduct and ignore official conduct.

In response, Dreeben suggested that this approach could be feasible if the court could establish a test to classify most of Trump's actions after the election as private rather than official.

Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, believes that Barrett plays a significant role in the immunity case. According to Somin, Barrett's perspective is that prosecution can move forward if it targets private actions instead of official ones. He notes that Barrett views most of the accusations against Trump as private in nature.

Idaho’s lawyer defending the state’s abortion position was questioned by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor during oral arguments in the abortion case this week. Sotomayor, the court’s most senior liberal justice, asked about the types of emergency complications that would be exempted from the state’s strict ban on the procedure.

Idaho allows abortion only when a pregnant woman's life is in danger. However, the Biden administration argues that most emergency rooms are required by federal law to provide the procedure if it is necessary to safeguard a woman's health.

Justice Sotomayor raised a scenario during the hearing, questioning Idaho's attorney Josh Turner about what would happen if a pregnant woman's water breaks prematurely and doctors are worried about sepsis or uncontrollable bleeding.

The question could have been answered more simply. Idaho proposed in written arguments this year that certain emergency conditions could be exempt from the ban. However, during the discussion with Sotomayor, Turner provided a more detailed answer: A doctor would need to make a "good-faith medical judgment" that the condition was life-threatening.

People gather during a protest in support of reproductive rights and emergency abortion care on the day the Supreme Court justices hear oral arguments over the legality of Idaho's Republican-backed, near-total abortion ban in medical-emergency situations, in Washington, DC, on April 24.

During a protest in Washington, DC, people gathered to show their support for reproductive rights and emergency abortion care. This protest took place on the same day that the Supreme Court justices were hearing oral arguments about the legality of Idaho's Republican-backed, near-total abortion ban in medical-emergency situations. The event was captured in a photo by Evelyn Hockstein from Reuters.

Related article

Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s oral arguments over emergency abortions

Barrett was surprised when he interjected during the conversation with Turner. He expressed his shock, saying, "I thought your own expert had mentioned that these cases were covered. And now you're saying they're not?" This moment would later become one of the most quoted lines from the argument.

Turner began to reply, "I'm not saying that."

Barrett jumped in, "Well, you're hedging. I mean, Justice Sotomayor is asking you if this would be covered or not, and I thought the legislature's witnesses mentioned that those complications would be exempted."

The question at hand addresses a key issue in the case: Can Idaho doctors comply with both the state's abortion ban and the federal law mandating them to stabilize pregnant patients in medical emergencies?

According to Beth Brinkmann, senior litigation director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, the questions posed seem to focus on what the court needs to decide without revealing her own stance on the matter.

Brinkmann, an experienced Supreme Court litigator, emphasized the significance of oral arguments in providing insight beyond the written briefs presented by both parties.

According to Brinkmann, oral arguments offer an opportunity for justices like Barrett to challenge and evaluate the points raised by advocates.

Editor's P/S:

The Supreme Court hearings on abortion and presidential immunity have brought Justice Amy Coney Barrett into the spotlight. Barrett's active engagement and probing questions during the arguments have demonstrated her influence on the court's deliberations. In the abortion case, Barrett challenged Idaho's attorney on the exemptions for emergency complications, highlighting the complexities of the case. In the immunity case, she guided Trump's attorney into acknowledging the limitations of presidential immunity, potentially paving the way for the prosecution of private actions.

Barrett's role as a swing vote between the conservative and progressive factions on the court has been evident in her recent decisions. She has occasionally found herself in the middle, seeking a balanced approach. However, her participation in the current term's significant cases indicates that she is becoming more comfortable in carving out a unique position. Her vote will likely play a crucial role in shaping the court's rulings on these highly controversial issues.