LISTENING TO THE LAW

A justice explains the Supreme Court’s work with clarity and restraint.

At once accessible and unexpectedly engaging, Barrett’s first book distills often complex constitutional ideas into a clear account of the court’s work and the philosophy that shapes her approach. Barrett traces her path from law clerk to 103rd associate justice in 2020, while also demystifying the court’s daily operations. She emphasizes collegiality—“The success of a multi-member court rides on the ability to disagree respectfully”—although this sentiment seems to go against her rare rebuke of fellow Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (over Jackson’s criticism of President Trump’s attempt to ban birthright citizenship). At the core is Barrett’s explanation of originalism. “I’m not an originalist because I think that history yields easy answers or prevents bad judging,” she writes. “I’m an originalist because I think that it’s the right way to think about law.” She broadens her account to explore the origins of the Constitution, the reasoning behind landmark cases, and the importance of reading full opinions rather than headlines. Her treatment of the controversial Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationdecision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, illustrates this method. She outlines both majority and dissenting arguments, illuminating sharply different views of the court’s role. While instructive, this analysis stops short of grappling with the political consequences of the ruling. What’s absent within her narrative is striking precisely because it contrasts with the candor evident elsewhere in the book. Despite her emphasis on clarity and transparency, Barrett avoids addressing the court’s most disputed recent decisions, the perception that it has often deferred to the Trump administration, and the intensifying debate over judicial ethics and structural reform—including proposals for stricter financial disclosures, recusal standards, and even term limits. She does, however, point to the law’s unambiguous force: In 1951, the 22nd Amendment established that “[n]o person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” That constitutional rule, she underscores, “leaves no room for second-guessing.”

A lucid guide to how one Supreme Court justice believes the court should do its work.