logo
Amy Coney Barrett's Biggest Supreme Court Allies Revealed

Amy Coney Barrett's Biggest Supreme Court Allies Revealed

Newsweek6 days ago
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett has remained a consistent member of the Court's conservative bloc during the 2024–25 term but her voting patterns showed nuance in key areas, new analysis shows.
Despite MAGA backlash at some of her moves, Barrett voted most frequently with conservative-leaning justices, according to empirical figures from SCOTUSblog.
Barrett agreed most with Justice Brett Kavanaugh (91 percent) and Chief Justice John Roberts, reflecting a continued center-right alignment, it said.
Barrett voted least often with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (68 percent), Justice Neil Gorsuch (72 percent) and Justice Sonia Sotomayor (74 percent), the analysis found.
While her overall rate of agreement with the majority was in the lower-mid range among justices, she occasionally sided with liberals in procedural or technical rulings.
Why It Matters
American public confidence in the judiciary has been increasing divided and perception of partisnaship at an all time high, Barrett's votes—though largely conservative—may come under heightened attention for any deviation from ideological orthodoxy.
The ideological balance of the Court has fundamentally shifted in recent years, with six of its nine justices appointed by Republican presidents—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—and three nominated by Democratic presidents justices, and typically represent the Court's liberal minority—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett talk before President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S....
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett talk before President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on February 7, 2023 in Washington, D.C. MoreWhat To Know
In the 2024-25 term, Justice Barrett sided with the Court's majority in 81 percent of opinions, which from a total of 61 cases, places her in the minority in 12 decisions—typical for a reliably conservative justice who occasionally breaks from the bloc.
Her minority votes do however, reflect a notable level of judicial independence, often stemming from her textualist and proceduralist approach.
Some prominent examples include:
Environmental Regulation Case : Barrett joined the three liberal justices to dissent in a closely watched pollution case, arguing that the majority misinterpreted statutory text—highlighting her willingness to break from conservative norms in favor of legal clarity
: Barrett joined the three liberal justices to dissent in a closely watched pollution case, arguing that the majority misinterpreted statutory text—highlighting her willingness to break from conservative norms in favor of legal clarity Emergency Aid Freeze Case : She again aligned with liberals and Chief Justice Roberts to reject an emergency order freezing foreign aid, showing sensitivity to executive overreach
: She again aligned with liberals and Chief Justice Roberts to reject an emergency order freezing foreign aid, showing sensitivity to executive overreach Jan. 6 Obstruction Ruling: Barrett shared a dissent with Sotomayor and Kagan, criticizing the majority's narrow interpretation of obstruction statutes related to the Capitol riot
In early March, Justice Barrett joined Chief Justice Roberts and the court's three liberal justices in rejecting the Trump administration's request to freeze nearly $2 billion in USAID payments. For many MAGA figures, this wasn't just judicial restraint—it was a betrayal.
Shortly after, Barrett voted against the Trump administration's position again, this time in a 5–4 decision concerning use of the Alien Enemies Act for deporting alleged gang members. She sided with the court's liberal justices in dissenting from the majority, which angered right‑wing activists who saw her as undermining Trump's authority
For MAGA supporters, Barrett's judgments during these high‑profile disputes—arguably the most emblematic of Trump's agenda—crossed a line.
Despite his increasingly vocal criticism of perceived disloyalty from within the conservative legal sphere, President Donald Trump has notably refrained from publicly turning on Barrett.
His early investment in Barrett remains evident. At her 2020 swearing-in, Trump lauded the Notre Dame law professor as "one of our nation's most brilliant legal scholars," and insisted she would "faithfully interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench."
The Supreme Court of the United States continues to draw national attention as a powerful arbiter of American law, increasingly perceived as driving jurisprudence in a conservative direction.
A Gallup poll, conducted September 3 to 15, 2024 among 1,007 adults, suggested 58 percent of Americans view the court as conservative. Trust in the judicial branch, especially among independents, has declined sharply—reaching just 48 percent, among the lowest levels in decades. While 69 percent of Republicans say the Court's ideological stance is "about right," 82 percent of Democrats believe the Court is "too conservative."
The pollster reported a margin of error of ±4 percentage.
The Context
Justice Barrett's jurisprudence reflects a commitment to originalism and textualism—interpretative methods closely associated with the conservative legal movement. In key rulings on abortion, executive authority, and agency deference, she has reinforced rather than moderated the court's conservative trajectory.
Barrett's scholarly background sometimes leads to more technical legal reasoning, and while she occasionally diverges from her conservative peers in limited circumstances, these instances are rare and generally do not shift the outcome of major cases.
The court's conservative majority has left a profound mark on landmark decisions involving abortion, gun rights, affirmative action, presidential immunity, and the power of federal agencies. In Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Court overturned Roe vs. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after nearly 50 years. It expanded gun rights in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen (2022) and most recently, in Trump vs. United States (2024), it recognized broad presidential immunity for official acts—ruling in Trump's favor.
In Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard and its companion case against the University of North Carolina (2023), the Court dismantled race-conscious college admissions policies. And in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo (2024), the Court effectively overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year precedent that had granted deference to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws. This decision, along with a companion ruling limiting agencies' authority to enforce regulations in their own administrative courts, signals a broader effort to curtail the power of the executive branch.
What People Are Saying
Professor Harold Krent of Chicago-Kent College of Law said in a July 2025 interview with Bloomberg Law's June Grasso, Barrett has largely sided with the Court's conservative majority. "No, it doesn't surprise me at all," Krent said when asked about Barrett's high rate of voting with the majority. "Obviously, those three justices—Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—wield a lot of the power on this current court, and they will do so for the foreseeable future."
Krent noted that the Court "continues to lean conservative" and that its ideological center has shifted further to the right, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, often considered a pivotal vote, has effectively become the Court's "median justice."
President Doanld Trump, responding to a question in June about recent backlash that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has received from some of his MAGA supporters critical of her recent remarks from the bench on the Trump administration's bid to end birthright citizenship, said: "I just have great respect for her. I always have. And her decision was brilliantly written today, from all accounts."
White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields told CNN in statement in June: "President Trump will always stand with the U.S. Supreme Court, unlike the Democrat Party, which, if given the opportunity, would pack the court, ultimately undermining its integrity. The President may disagree with the Court and some of its rulings, but he will always respect its foundational role."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

LA Mayor Bass dodges question on whether all illegal immigrants in city should be allowed to stay
LA Mayor Bass dodges question on whether all illegal immigrants in city should be allowed to stay

New York Post

time20 minutes ago

  • New York Post

LA Mayor Bass dodges question on whether all illegal immigrants in city should be allowed to stay

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass repeatedly dodged answering directly on whether all illegal immigrants in the sanctuary city should be allowed to stay. In an interview with ABC's 'This Week,' Bass further criticized President Donald Trump's decision to federalize 4,000 National Guard troops and deploy about 700 Marines to Los Angeles amid anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots and protests. The Democratic mayor was questioned by ABC host Martha Raddatz on who she thinks should be deported – whether that should be just people convicted of crimes – given Los Angeles has about a million 'undocumented workers.' 'What should happen to those people?' Raddatz asked. 'Let me just say that, because we are a city of immigrants, we have entire sectors of our economy that are dependent on immigrant labor. We have to get the fire areas rebuilt. We're not going to get our city rebuilt without immigrant labor,' Bass claimed. 'And it's not just the deportations, it's the fear that sets in when raids occur, when people are snatched off the street. And I know you are aware that even people who are here legally, even people who are U.S. citizens, have been detained.' 5 Bass criticized Trump's decision to federalize 4,000 National Guard troops and deploy about 700 Marines to Los Angeles. ABC 'So they should not be deported?' Raddatz pressed. Bass responded, 'I don't think so. I think they should stay.' The ABC host interjected, noting that the mayor was discussing 'a million undocumented people.' 'No, let me just tell you, what I think we need is comprehensive immigration reform. I served in Congress for 12 years,' Bass said. 5 The Democratic mayor was questioned by ABC host Martha Raddatz on who she thinks should be deported. AFP via Getty Images Raddatz again interrupted the mayor, noting that Bass, as a congresswoman, did not ensure the passage of such immigration reform. 'And why didn't we get it? I mean, after I left, there was an immigration reform bill that had bipartisan support,' Bass said, attempting to blame Trump. 'This was during the campaign. The president decided he didn't want to have it happen because he didn't want immigration reform to happen, where he didn't take credit for it.' Noting the surge in border crossings under former President Joe Biden, Raddatz recalled asking a Border Patrol agent whether he felt badly for illegal immigrants. 5 Raddatz interrupted the mayor, noting that Bass, as a congresswoman, did not ensure the passage of such immigration reform. / MEGA His response, Raddatz said, was yes, but 'they're cutting in line in front of those people who want to do it legally in the right way.' 'Let me just tell you that the people that make that trek, many of whom walk from Central America and even South America up to our border, risk their lives. I don't believe that all of these people are sitting at home dreaming of coming to Los Angeles,' Bass said in response. 'They're coming here out of desperation.' Raddatz noted that 'hundreds of thousands' of people illegally crossed the border under the Biden administration. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) figures, however, recorded about 10.8 million border encounters and roughly two million more known 'got-a-ways' during Biden's term. Trump, meanwhile, has reported record-low border crossings since he began his second term. 5 Noting the surge in border crossings under Biden, Raddatz recalled asking a Border Patrol agent whether he felt badly for illegal immigrants. / MEGA When asked if there's 'anything good' she thinks the Trump administration has done in these six months at the border, Bass said, 'Well, I will keep praise on the administration for the first six months in Los Angeles with the fires. If you ask me, is there anything that they have done good in terms of immigration, I don't know. I don't think so. I think that the viewpoint has been punitive, has been, let's make it as miserable as possible so that these people don't come.' Bass said she has not recently had conversations with the Trump administration regarding immigration despite the National Guard presence in the city. 'I have put in a request and I hope to. I will always be open to a conversation,' the mayor said. 'I want to work with the administration to solve this problem. We have the World Cup in 11 short months here. We have Olympics and Paralympics coming in three short years. I know that these games are very important to the president and I look forward to working with him, and we have an extreme difference on this issue, but there's many issues for us to work on, and I will continue trying to outreach to the administration and hope that at some point they'll be responsive.' 5 Bass said she has not had conversations with the Trump administration regarding immigration despite the National Guard presence in the city. REUTERS The mayor also responded to how she hopes the next six months to two years will be for immigrants in Los Angeles, taking a dig at what she deemed the Trump administration's 'reign of terror.' The Pentagon last week announced it was pulling 2,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles, citing how the 'lawlessness' seen in early June anti-ICE riots has subsided. 'Well, I am just hoping that this reign of terror ends. I'm hoping that the military leaves because they were never needed here to begin with,' Bass said. 'I hope that we can get back to normal.'

The exodus from New York City will only get worse under Mamdani
The exodus from New York City will only get worse under Mamdani

The Hill

time20 minutes ago

  • The Hill

The exodus from New York City will only get worse under Mamdani

Much has been written about America's largest city edging closer to electing a socialist mayor. Zohran Mamdani recently won the Democratic primary, which is likely enough to secure the mayoralty of New York City. He still has to get through a general election that includes incumbent Eric Adams, now running as an independent. But Mamdani is in a strong position. How did Mamdani rise to the top of the ticket over Andrew Cuomo, a well-known but scandal-plagued former governor? He ran a calculated campaign focused on New York City's affordability crisis. He's promised free bus rides, city-run grocery stores, a $30 minimum wage, and rent freezes — all to be funded by the, in Mamdani's eyes, evil billionaires of the city. So have at it. If you're old enough to remember New York City before the 1990s, you've seen what can happen under dysfunctional leadership in one of the world's most important cities. But if Mamdani is indeed successful in implementing his policy ideas, expect one noticeable trend to continue and likely grow: the number of people leaving New York for greener pastures. While we may criticize bad ideas or bad policy, that's the beauty of the American federalist system. We often look to Washington for answers, but that's the wrong approach. State and local governments retain significant control over many aspects of our daily lives, including education, criminal justice, infrastructure, elections, and taxation. This decentralization creates a unique environment in which cities and states are free to innovate and compete. One of the most powerful aspects of federalism is that it allows states to serve as 'laboratories of democracy,' a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. States can experiment with new laws, policies and regulations tailored to the specific needs and preferences of their populations. When those policies are effective, they may be adopted by other states, and occasionally even by the federal government. When they fail, the impact is limited to that one jurisdiction. This system naturally fosters healthy competition among the states. Policymakers are incentivized to make their states more attractive for residents, workers, and businesses. That often means pursuing lower taxes, fewer regulations, safer communities, and better educational options. Much of the South, including Georgia, has benefited by adopting policies aimed at growing their economies, cutting red tape and reducing taxes. In doing so, they've attracted new residents and companies fleeing high-tax, high-regulation states like California, Illinois and, yes, New York. Partisans may put out rankings on who is the best or worst, but there is no more measurable sign of success (or failure) than people voting with their feet. This competition is real. States vie for jobs, investment, and talent. They actively court small and major corporations, touting their state's tax climate, workforce, and quality of life. When a company relocates its U.S. headquarters, or a family moves for a lower cost of living, that's federalism in action. Federalism also serves as a check on the national government. When Washington overreaches or fails to act, states can step in. During COVID-19, for example, states made widely varying decisions about lockdowns, mandates, and school closures. That diversity of approaches allowed for comparisons, corrections, and accountability — and, it turns out, it was one of the biggest drivers of out-migration from states like New York over the past five years. Ultimately, federalism ensures that no single ideology or governing model dominates the entire country. It gives Americans the freedom to choose where they live based not just on geography or climate, but on values, opportunity, and public policy. This freedom of movement and choice reinforces liberty and drives continual improvement. In the last five years of available Census information, 78,000 residents have moved from New York to Georgia. That wasn't because numerous families happened to break down on Interstate 95. It was intentional. If Mamdani is successful at putting socialism into action in New York City, expect those numbers to continue growing.

Minnesota senator's guilty verdict could put Democrats' narrow majority in play
Minnesota senator's guilty verdict could put Democrats' narrow majority in play

Axios

time20 minutes ago

  • Axios

Minnesota senator's guilty verdict could put Democrats' narrow majority in play

Political control of the Minnesota Senate could be up for grabs following Democratic state Sen. Nicole Mitchell's conviction on felony burglary charges. The latest: The first-term senator from Woodbury is facing growing pressure to resign in the wake of Friday's guilty verdict, with top DFL leaders saying that they expect her to follow through on private promises to step aside if convicted. Mitchell hasn't commented on her plans, though her attorney told Axios she will appeal in the criminal case. Why it matters: The fallout and political fight over the case could again upend the balance of power at the narrowly divided Capitol, putting Democrats' 34-33 majority in the Senate in play. That's because if Mitchell steps down — or is eventually removed from office via a vote of her Senate peers — it will trigger a high-stakes special election that will determine control of the chamber. State of play: Democrats have carried the east metro area covered by the suburban Senate District 47 by comfortable margins in recent elections. Mitchell secured a four-year term with about 58% of the vote in 2022. She wasn't up for reelection in 2024, but the two Democrats who won the nested House seats — Reps. Ethan Cha and Amanda Hemmingsen-Jaeger— won by 9 and 21 percentage points, respectively. Yes, but: The chance to flip the seat in a low-turnout, off-year special election would fuel a hotly contested race that attracts gobs of spending from both sides. Case in point: Outside groups poured seven figures into the majority-making west metro Senate district that was on the November 2024 ballot due to another DFL senator's decision to step down amid a run for Congress. The intrigue: A successful run by either Cha or Hemmingsen-Jaeger would trigger yet another special election that would put control of the House in play. That chamber is expected to return to a tie when slain Speaker Emeritus Melissa Hortman's seat is filled in September. Neither lawmaker replied to a request for comment sent to their campaign email accounts over the weekend. What we're hearing: Republican Dwight Dorau, who ran against Mitchell in 2022 and Cha in 2024, is also seen as a potential candidate for a special election. He did not respond to a request for comment sent through his campaign Facebook page Sunday. Between the lines: A vacancy this summer or fall would allow Mitchell's seat to be filled before the Legislature reconvenes in February. Waiting until the next year could leave the chamber deadlocked 33-33 for weeks of the already short legislative session. Zoom out: The renewed Mitchell drama is the latest in a series of twists for the narrowly divided Legislature, which has been rocked over the last year by lawmaker deaths, residency drama and the resignation of a GOP member who was arrested for underage solicitation. What we're watching: What Democrats do next if Mitchell doesn't step aside.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store