Why Justice Amy Coney Barrett could be democracy's last defense

Surprisingly, in recent months, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as a pivotal figure in safeguarding democratic principles, voting against Donald Trump even as her judicial philosophy remains firmly conservative.

Barrett was anticipated to solidify the court's conservative majority. Indeed, she has consistently voted in line with conservative positions on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, guns, and religious freedom.

For those of us who follow the court closely, it was an unexpected surprise that she has sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's liberal justices in key decisions against Trump, including late last week, raising the question, Is she turning her back on the man who appointed her in 2020?

In a notable 5-4 decision, Barrett joined Roberts and the liberal justices to reject Trump's attempt to withhold nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. This ruling underscored the court's commitment to upholding congressional authority over federal spending, signaling potential limits to presidential power — assuming that’s how Barrett saw it and will see it moving forward.

Her opposition drew sharp criticism from right-wing figures, who accused Barrett of abandoning those conservative principles she was ostensibly put on the high court to uphold; however, she’s no shrinking conservative violet — she did vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. She voted with conservative justices over 80 percent of the time in 2023. Does her recent stance highlight her willingness to diverge when constitutional boundaries are at stake? In other words, will Barrett be democracy’s last defense?

If you consider her past, that question might seem imprudent. Barrett's personal beliefs have been a subject of public discourse. Her affiliation with the Christian group People of Praise, which has drawn comparisons to the dystopian themes in Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, has raised questions about the influence of her faith on her judicial decisions.

One could argue that if Barrett's Christian values truly emphasize peace and freedom, she should reflect these principles in her rulings, especially when fundamental democratic norms are at stake. And another thing, this could be something personal: Barrett and her husband have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti, and her youngest biological child has Down syndrome. The cases involving the Trump administration could harm her kids and their rights.

Perhaps, though this isn’t conclusive, it explains why Barrett's record on LGBTQ+ issues is mixed.

In June 2021, she joined a unanimous decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, ruling in favor of a Catholic social service agency that refused to certify same-sex couples as foster parents, citing religious objections.

In November 2021, Barrett sided with the majority in a 6-3 decision to decline hearing an appeal from Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Catholic-affiliated hospital, that sought to refuse a hysterectomy to a transgender man on religious grounds. And in November 2023, Barrett again joined a 6-3 majority in declining to hear an appeal challenging Washington State's ban on conversion therapy for minors, allowing the law to remain in effect.

These votes may offer a hint as to why Barrett is a wild card when it comes to how she will side on a slew of Trump-related cases headed to the court that will test the boundaries of presidential powers, many stemming from Trump's recent actions.

One notable case involves Trump's executive order aiming to end birthright citizenship, a move experts predict will face substantial legal challenges. Another contentious issue is Trump's federal spending freeze, which has already been subject to judicial scrutiny. Legal scholars anticipate that the court will closely examine these actions, balancing executive authority against constitutional limits.

With the court's solid 6-3 conservative majority, Barrett's votes become crucial in cases challenging executive overreach. Her recent decisions suggest she could serve as a firewall against autocratic actions, aligning with Roberts and the liberal justices to uphold democratic norms.

Chief Justice Roberts has previously cautioned against an overly activist court, emphasizing the judiciary's role in maintaining balance among government branches. So it’s somewhat safe to assume that he will come out on the side of trying to curtail Trump’s overreach of power.

The future trajectory of Barrett's judicial career remains a subject of speculation and fascination, both on the liberal and conservative sides. Conservatives fear she will bend to the liberal wing, and liberals hope she follows the examples of conservative justices coming to their senses after gaining some experience on the court.

Will she be lauded for her courage in defending democratic values, akin to justices like David Souter and Harry Blackmun, who were appointed by Republican presidents (George H.W. Bush and Richard Nixon, respectively) and who went on to side more often with the liberal wing of the court? Souter famously sided with Al Gore in the 2000 election recount case and Blackmun was part of the majority in Roe v. Wade.

Or will she adhere strictly to conservative ideologies, aligning with the corrupt Justices Alito and Thomas? Her recent rulings indicate a potential for independent thought, suggesting she may not be easily swayed by partisan pressures.

Barrett is squarely in the middle at this critical juncture in American jurisprudence as it relates to SCOTUS. Because of this, it’s worth asking: Is Barrett our best last hope to save our democracy? Let’s hope the answer is yes.

Voices is dedicated to featuring a wide range of inspiring personal stories and impactful opinions from the LGBTQ+ and Allied community. Visit Advocate.com/submit to learn more about submission guidelines. We welcome your thoughts and feedback on any of our stories. Email us at voices@equalpride.com. Views expressed in Voices stories are those of the guest writers, columnists and editors, and do not directly represent the views of The Advocate or our parent company, equalpride.