Justice Amy Coney Barrett responds to criticism that the Supreme Court is allowing Trump to expand his power

Amy Coney Barrett spent nearly two decades teaching at the University of Notre Dame before President Donald Trump nominated her to the Supreme Court in 2020. In a wide-ranging interview tied to the release of her memoir, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, Barrett described trading classroom life for life on the bench while continuing to teach a weeklong constitutional seminar. She told CBS that, despite the demands and security constraints of her role, she does not regret the move and is proud to serve.

“I decide the cases as they come” — Barrett on ideology and labels

Pressed on whether the Court has shifted to the right since her arrival, Barrett rejected partisan labels. “I think shifting to the right, or shifting to the left, I think those are other people's labels,” she said, adding that she aims to “decide the cases as they come” and has faced criticism from both sides. That refrain — that judges must avoid pre-judgment and resolve disputes based on the law and the specific facts before them — is a touchstone of the book’s argument.

Life after Dobbs: states, medical practice and unanswered questions

Barrett reaffirmed the Court’s approach in Dobbs v. Jackson, the 2022 decision that removed a federal constitutional right to abortion and returned the issue to state legislatures. She argued Dobbs did not make abortion illegal nationwide or pronounce moral judgments, but instead left those policy choices to democratic processes and state law — a stance she reiterated in the interview. Barrett acknowledged, however, that legislators and courts will now face a host of practical medical and regulatory questions — from emergency contraception to in-vitro fertilization — and said many of those disputes have not yet come before the Court.

On fears Dobbs could threaten other rights: tune it out, she says

When asked whether Dobbs raised the prospect of revisiting other precedents — including same-sex marriage — Barrett repeated her view that external commentary should be set aside. Noting that established doctrine recognizes certain rights as “fundamental” (for example, marriage, sexual intimacy, contraception and raising children), she said the Court’s existing framework defines which rights merit constitutional protection and insisted the Court must stick to its doctrinal path rather than be driven by speculation. Her comments came after public figures, including Hillary Clinton, warned that the Court might re-examine prior rulings.

On the emergency docket and Trump’s executive power: “we get the law right”

Barrett addressed criticism that the Supreme Court has too often allowed President Trump’s policies to proceed on the emergency docket. She emphasized the institutional posture she and colleagues try to maintain: judges decide legal questions narrowly and on the record, not by policing a sitting president’s politics. “It’s not our job to survey and decide whether the current occupant of an office in this particular moment is…to form a political view,” she said, adding that the Court’s role is to evaluate the legal claims and the specific facts of each case.

National Guard deployments, tariffs and judicial restraint

On concrete controversies — for instance, the president’s recent public comments about deploying National Guard troops to cities — Barrett said she could not offer a view absent a live case. She explained that a judge’s role is shaped by briefs, oral argument and collegial deliberation, and that initial impressions often change during the decision-making process. Similarly, when asked whether tariffs fall within presidential authority or are reserved for Congress, Barrett again declined to pre-judge matters she expects the Court may face, underscoring judicial restraint and the need to address issues only when they arrive as adjudicated disputes.

The personal side: family, life in Washington and the “burn the boats” moment

Barrett reflected on her family life — she is a mother of seven — and on the tradeoffs inherent in a lifetime appointment. In excerpts from Listening to the Law she describes the family decision to “burn the boats” and embrace the demands of the High Court. She said she misses the rhythms of her old life in South Bend but finds fulfillment in the Court’s responsibilities and in continuing some limited teaching.

Why Barrett is a focus of attention on the Court

Observers describe Barrett as one of the most closely watched and influential justices on the bench, in part because she sits at the center of major rulings — including the Dobbs case. Her votes and opinions are scrutinized for how they reshape doctrinal lines and for signals they send about how the Court will handle future challenges to administrative action, executive authority and individual rights. In the interview and book excerpt, Barrett framed those contributions as a judge’s duty to “get the law right,” not to pursue a political agenda.

Timeline: Key dates and context