In a revealing new memoir, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett offers a staunch defense of her pivotal role in overturning Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that reshaped abortion rights in America.
According to Newsmax, in her book "Listening to the Law," set for release on Sept. 9, 2025, Barrett argues that the 1973 Roe ruling undermined democratic processes and justifies her vote in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that ended federal abortion protections.
Barrett’s journey to the Supreme Court began when she was appointed by President Donald Trump as his third nominee to the bench. Her confirmation in 2020 placed her among the conservative majority, setting the stage for significant rulings. Among these was the Dobbs decision, where she joined the majority opinion to reverse Roe v. Wade.
In her memoir, Barrett critiques the foundation of the 1973 ruling, asserting it lacked grounding in American legal tradition. She points out that abortion had historically been restricted rather than protected under U.S. law. Barrett writes, "The evidence does not show that the American people have traditionally considered the right to obtain an abortion so fundamental to liberty that it 'goes without saying' in the Constitution."
Continuing her argument, Barrett claims the original decision disrupted the democratic will of the populace. She believes it skewed the political landscape by imposing a federal standard on a deeply divisive issue. In her words, "The Court's role is to respect the choices that the people have agreed upon, not to tell them what they should agree to."
Barrett aligns her views with Justice Samuel Alito’s perspective, describing Roe as an overreach of judicial authority. She also references the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who suggested Roe interrupted potential legislative reforms. As Ginsburg noted, the ruling may have "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction" and "prolonged divisiveness."
Beyond Roe, Barrett discusses the balance between personal beliefs and judicial responsibility in her book. She cites her vote to uphold the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a case where she prioritized legal obligations. Barrett explains, "Swearing to apply the law faithfully means deciding each case based on my best judgment about what the law is."
The fallout from the Dobbs ruling brought significant personal challenges for Barrett, as detailed in her memoir. She recounts family tensions during vacations, protests outside her home, and threats after a draft opinion leaked. These events underscored the intense public reaction to the court’s decision on abortion rights.
Barrett also revisits past scrutiny, including remarks made during a 2017 hearing by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Feinstein famously said, "The dogma lives loudly within you," questioning Barrett’s ability to separate faith from law. In response, Barrett counters, "Nonreligious judges also have deeply held moral commitments, which means that they too face conflicts between those commitments and the demands of the law."
Throughout her memoir, Barrett emphasizes her dedication to impartiality in her role as a justice. She insists that personal views must not influence legal interpretations, a principle she strives to uphold. As she puts it, "Throughout, the job of every justice is to do his or her best by the law."
The memoir, published by Sentinel, a conservative imprint of Penguin Random House, has already garnered attention. Reports indicate Barrett received a substantial $2 million advance for the book, highlighting its anticipated impact. Its release on Sept. 9, 2025, is expected to spark further discussion on the judiciary’s role in contentious issues.
Barrett’s writings provide insight into the conservative perspective on judicial overreach and abortion rights. Her arguments may resonate with those who believe courts should defer to public consensus on polarizing matters. Yet, they also reignite debates over the balance of power between judicial decisions and legislative processes.
The memoir comes at a time when the Supreme Court remains a focal point of national contention. Barrett’s defense of the Dobbs ruling will likely fuel ongoing conversations about reproductive rights in America. Her personal reflections add a human dimension to the legal and political storm surrounding the issue.
As Barrett shares her perspective, the overturning of Roe v. Wade continues to shape state laws and public policy. Her memoir serves as both a justification of her stance and a historical record of a pivotal judicial moment. It remains to be seen how her words will influence future discourse on the court’s role in society.