Visit from Justice Amy Coney Barrett

The University of New Mexico Law School and St. John’s College invited Justice Amy Coney Barrett to come to Santa Fe on her speaking tour to promote her new book, “Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution”. The event took place at the Lensic Performing Arts Center in Santa Fe. The students from the colleges and other distinguished members from the legal profession were invited, as well as a limited number of members of the general public. We were there, as I am a member of the Lensic Board of Directors and am very interested in the law and the workings of the Supreme Court.

Needless to say, there were a number of loud but peaceful demonstrators outside the theater. I have never seen such security. I cannot remember seeing it even in New York when I lived there. There were City and State Police, the sheriff’s department, and plainclothes men who were part of the court’s security staff.

The Executive Director of the Lensic, Joel Alberts, welcomed the audience and the guests for the afternoon. He said that he appreciated the protesters, saying that this was how democracy works and further that those in the audience were there to listen respectfully, and if any made a disturbance, they had very nice people to help them find their way out, gaining a laugh from all.


The Justice was interviewed about her book by Hon. David F. Levi (President of the American Law Institute) and Ben Allison (co-founder of Santa Fe firm Bardacke Allison Miller LLP), who had attended Notre Dame School of Law with Justice Barrett and asked a few softball questions submitted beforehand by the students at the school.

We learned that Justice Barrett had clerked for the former conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, then taught for 15 years at Notre Dame School of Law before her first judicial appointment as a Federal Appellate Judge. She stressed that an important aspect of being a judge is to write clearly, and I thought it was interesting that she always did a first draft of her opinions by longhand on a yellow pad.

Obviously, I came in the afternoon both with my own point of view and an effort for an open mind. I always want to try to understand the other side of any question, whether I agree with it or not. I would ask those who had said the Justice should not be allowed to speak in Santa Fe, how else would they have had an opportunity to protest her in person and get noticed?

Interestingly, Justice Barrett spoke about the efforts the court made for collegiality since they “were serving life terms, like an arranged marriage with no option of divorce”. After a case was presented, they all had lunch together, with no one allowed to discuss the case. Also, when a new Justice was appointed, a sitting justice gave a dinner in their honor, first finding out what their favorite foods were. Justice Barrett did so for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson when she was appointed under President Biden.

Justice Barrett spoke of how important it was to adhere to the law and the precedent of former decisions. She spoke of textualism and originalism as what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution and the other document that Americans hold dear, the Declaration of Independence. She said that the court was part of the political process since the Justices were chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but not partisan once they came to the court. I will let the reader figure that one out!

Justice Barrett admitted that the court was also reacting to the extremely liberal Warren Court. Many have felt it went too far as Chief Justice Earl Warren’s court (1953-1969) was interested in social justice, equality, and civil liberties, and championed the rights of minorities. These were my heroes.

In their decisions, Justice Barrett said that the current Court was in 50% unanimous agreement, 15% along partisan lines, and 35%... I presume she meant it was up to each individual Justice, an interesting formula, you might say. Another contradiction in my opinion was that previous rulings should be respected unless they were unworkable or inherently wrong!

The protesters outside the Lensic were angriest about her siding with the majority in overturning Roe vs. Wade. Justice Barrett had already spoken of her deep religious background, and in her last few sentences of the afternoon, she answered the question very clearly when she said, “Of course, I would not do anything that went against my religion.”