Amy Coney Barrett says supreme court rulings are ‘not opinion polls’

Justice believes court should not ‘impose’ own values as it weighs request to overturn same-sex marriage decision

Ramon Antonio Vargas

Sat 6 Sep 2025 09.00 EDT

US supreme court rulings are “not just an opinion poll” of its nine judges’ beliefs, conservative Amy Coney Barrett says, as she and her colleagues weigh a request to overturn the legalization of same-sex marriage.

“The court should not be imposing its own values on the American people,” Barrett remarked in a preview of an interview airing on the latest episode of CBS News Sunday Morning. “That’s for the democratic process.”

Barrett delivered her comments in what was billed as her first television interview since she joined the supreme court in 2020 – a conversation with the Sunday Morning host Norah O’Donnell meant to promote her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution.

In the book, set for publication on 9 September, Barrett asserted her belief that the June 2022 ruling that struck down abortion rights nationally “respected the choice” of Americans. She wrote that she believed the 7-2 Roe v Wade ruling that established those federal abortion rights had “usurped the will of the American people”, as put by CNN, which ran an excerpt of the book a week before its release date.

Yet more than 60% of Americans believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a May 2024 poll found. That was only four points higher than in 2021, a year before Barrett joined four other ultraconservatives in removing national abortion access protections, clearing the way for numerous states to quickly ban or severely restrict the procedure.

Why Justice Amy Coney Barrett may be Haitian immigrants’ greatest ally, or foe, in the coming years

President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump pose for a photo with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the President’s nominee for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, her husband Jesse and their children Saturday, Sept. 26, 2020, in the Oval Office of the White House. Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks.
Opinion
As legal challenges to the Trump administration’s immigration policies make their way to the courts, decisions made by Barrett, mother to two Haitian children, could shape the future of hundreds of thousands of Haitian migrants in the U.S.by Vania AndréMar. 07, 2025

Overview:

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, known for her conservative judicial philosophy, also has personal ties to Haiti through her two adopted children. As legal challenges to Trump’s rollback of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other immigration policies may reach the Supreme Court, the Haitian community should watch closely to see whether Barrett’s rulings will favor or restrict their legal pathways to stay in the U.S.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett rose to the national spotlight in 2020 during her confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, a lifetime appointment that grants her considerable influence over American law and policies.

Beyond her conservative judicial philosophy, Barrett drew additional attention for the makeup of her family, which consisted of seven children, two of whom were adopted from Haiti.

Now, five years later, her connection to Haiti has taken on new significance as key legal battles unfold over President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, which emphasize rolling back Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and other protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitians living in the United States.

Amy Coney Barrett Sides With Liberal Justice During Supreme Court Hearing

Published Apr 22, 2025 at 12:23 PM EDT

Updated Apr 24, 2025 at 1:18 PM EDT


Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared to side with her liberal colleagues while hearing arguments in a case that will determine the future of no-cost preventive care under the Affordable Care Act.

Why It Matters

The case, Kennedy V. Braidwood challenges the legal authority of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (PSTF), created by the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. The task force recommends services insurers must cover at no-cost measures including cancer screenings and HIV prevention drugs like PrEP. But the conservative Christian employers in Texas who brought the case, argue that the 16 members of the task force, who are appointed by the HHS secretary, are unconstitutionally appointed.

The case will be consequential for the future of American health care. If the justices uphold a New Orleans-based fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2024, treatments that are now cost-free may become subject to payments.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett testifies during the third day of her confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2020. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Pool via AP

Coney Barrett, who was nominated by Trump in 2020, has emerged as a centrist judge in Supreme Court cases and has been criticized by Trump supporters for voting against her conservative colleagues in the past.

What To Know

The Court's three liberal members, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have all appeared to side with the task force while conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch appeared sympathetic to the challengers, with Thomas suggesting Congress had never designated authority to run the task force.

Conservative lawyer Jonathan Miller, who is representing the plaintiffs, argued that PSTF members are meant to be independent from political pressure. He said they could not simultaneously retain independence while being subject to supervision by the health secretary.

But Coney Barrett said Mitchell's interpretation of the word "independent" was "maximalist" and pointed to the doctrine of "constitutional avoidance" which argues that if a statute is open to interpretation, the Court should pick an interpretation that raises the least constitutional problems—i.e. the Court should not interpret the word "independent" in a way that renders the PSTF unconstitutional.

It is the latest in a string of decisions and comments by Coney Barrett which put her on a different path to her more conservative colleagues. In March, she expressed concerns about reviving the non delegation doctrine, as suggested by conservative judge Clarence Thomas. This doctrine, which hasn't been used since the 1930s, puts a cap on the amount of money federal agencies and other nonelected officials can raise through tax dollars. Coney Barrett said it would be ineffective and could weaken the power of government agencies.

In April, Coney Barrett joined liberals as the sole conservative in opposing the Court's majority decision to allow the administration to continue deporting alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Source