Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett is no stranger to the nation’s spotlight. As the youngest member of the U.S. Supreme Court and the last of former President Donald Trump’s three appointees, Barrett has found herself at the center of some of the country’s most contentious legal battles. Now, with the publication of her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, she’s offering Americans a rare glimpse into her thinking on the bench—and the personal costs that come with serving at the highest level of the judiciary.
In a candid interview with The Associated Press on September 9, 2025, Barrett reflected on the challenges facing the court and the country. She was clear on one point: "Violence or threats of violence against judges shouldn’t be the cost of public service." Barrett’s words aren’t just theoretical. Alongside other justices, she’s received death threats, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. That ruling, which ended nearly 50 years of federally protected abortion rights, has reverberated across the nation, fueling protests, legal challenges, and a renewed debate over the limits of political power and personal safety.
Barrett, who joined the court in 2020 just weeks after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has become a pivotal figure in the court’s conservative supermajority. Her vote was crucial in the decision to overturn Roe, and she joined Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion without penning a separate one. When asked about her role in that historic moment, Barrett was characteristically discreet: “What happens in conference stays in conference.” Yet she did offer some insight into her judicial philosophy, noting, “I write when I feel like there’s something that I can contribute because there’s something that was left unsaid that I think is important to say methodologically.”
Barrett’s book, published by Sentinel—a conservative imprint of Penguin Random House—hit shelves on September 9. She reportedly received a $2 million advance for the work, which aims to make the Supreme Court more accessible to non-lawyers. In the book, Barrett addresses some of the most divisive issues facing the court, including abortion, executive power, and political polarization. She also discusses the court’s 2024 decision that shielded Trump from prosecution for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, though she notably avoids mentioning the former president by name or delving into the specifics of the case. “For example, when a former president was indicted—a historical first—the court took the case to decide whether he could be prosecuted for his official acts,” Barrett writes, echoing the court’s insistence on focusing on the presidency as an institution rather than any individual occupant.
Despite the turbulence of recent years, Barrett downplays the notion that the United States is in the midst of an unprecedented constitutional crisis. “It’s hard to say when you look over all of history that there haven’t been times in which that disagreement has been even more acute,” she told The Associated Press, pointing to the Civil War, Vietnam War protests, and the Great Depression as examples of even greater national discord. Still, she acknowledges that today’s polarization has “spilled over into a bad place, spilled into a bad place when it comes to these acts of political violence.”
One area where Barrett draws a clear line is on the constitutional two-term limit for U.S. presidents, a provision she describes as a “clear imperative—now memorialized in our binding law—that leaves no room for second-guessing.” She also defends the Supreme Court’s protection of free speech, even when it means upholding the right to burn the American flag—an act President Trump tried to criminalize by executive order last month. Barrett praises the late Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia for voting to protect flag burning as political speech, despite their personal distaste for the act.
Barrett’s jurisprudence is rooted in the belief that the Constitution sometimes places issues beyond the reach of democratic majorities, but when it does not, the court must “leave the matter to the democratic process, which requires citizens to persuade one another rather than a handful of Supreme Court justices.” She writes, “These points animate the Court’s reasoning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which holds that the Constitution leaves the regulation of abortion to the democratic process.”
The fallout from the Dobbs decision is being felt far beyond Washington. In Virginia, the ACLU of Virginia and the national ACLU have launched their largest-ever voter education campaign in the state, committing $1.8 million to inform Virginians about candidates for Attorney General and the House of Delegates in the upcoming November 2025 election. According to the ACLU, the campaign is focused on civil rights and civil liberties—especially voting rights, marriage equality, and reproductive healthcare. “Every Virginia House race is a frontline in the fight for our civil rights, and we’re committed to making sure that voters in key districts know whether their candidates will protect their basic civil rights—or roll them back,” said ACLU-VA Executive Director Mary Bauer.
The stakes are high. Virginia lawmakers recently passed language for three constitutional amendments to protect voting rights, marriage equality, and reproductive healthcare. These amendments must be approved again in the next legislative session before going to a public vote in 2026. Meanwhile, Virginia remains the last Southern state without an abortion ban, and the current Attorney General supported both the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe and a statewide ban. The November 4 election offers Virginians a rare opportunity to choose an Attorney General who aligns with their views on civil rights.
The ACLU campaign, which includes direct mail and digital ads, aims to ensure voters are informed about where each candidate stands on crucial issues. “Reproductive freedom is just one example of how Virginians can vote their values, and how our elected representatives can uphold them. It’s crucial that voters know the facts,” Bauer emphasized. The organization is careful to note that it does not endorse or oppose candidates, but seeks to empower voters with information.
Back in Washington, Barrett reflects on the personal impact of her high-profile role. Approaching the five-year anniversary of her confirmation, she says the biggest changes in her life revolve around security. “You can never feel completely free,” she admits. Even simple pleasures, like dancing at a family wedding, come with new anxieties about privacy and safety. Barrett recounted, “I just started kind of twirling around my niece a little bit, and all of a sudden I see my sister take off across the floor, and somebody had a phone out and they were recording me. She went up, and she said, ‘I want you to delete that.’”
As the nation continues to grapple with the legacy of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions and the upcoming elections in Virginia, the intersection of law, politics, and personal conviction remains as charged—and as consequential—as ever.
