Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has detailed her internal struggle between personal moral convictions and her judicial obligations in an excerpt from her upcoming memoir, ‘Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.’ Published by The Free Press, the excerpt reveals how she wrestled with ethical dilemmas, particularly during her early days on the Court, when she was confronted with a case involving Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, who was initially sentenced to death but had his conviction overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals.
Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020 to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, recounted the tension she faced in this case. While she personally opposes capital punishment, she ruled in favor of reinstating Tsarnaev’s death sentence, emphasizing that her duty is to uphold the law as interpreted by the Constitution, not to impose her own moral beliefs. She explained that while she could have potentially influenced the case to favor defendants facing the death penalty, she felt that would have been an abdication of her judicial responsibility.
Barrett acknowledged the difficulty of the decision, noting that she found the vote distasteful to cast. Nevertheless, she maintained that her role is to act as a referee, ensuring that the legal system functions within the framework established by the Constitution, rather than aligning it with her personal views. She also stressed that her office does not entitle her to shape the legal system according to her moral or policy preferences. The case highlighted the broader debate over the role of judges in American democracy—whether they should interpret the law as written or adapt it to reflect evolving societal values.
In the book, Barrett also addressed the broader implications of her decisions, arguing that the Constitution was not created to reflect the moral views of individuals but to serve as a framework for justice. She emphasized that judges must remain impartial, ensuring that the law is applied consistently, even when it conflicts with personal convictions. Her reflections underscore the complex balance between personal ethics and the demands of judicial service, raising important questions about the integrity of the legal system and the role of individual conscience in public office.