Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution

by Amy Coney Barrett

From Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a glimpse of her journey to the Court and an account of her approach to the Constitution

Since her confirmation hearing, Americans have peppered Justice Amy Coney Barrett with questions. How has she adjusted to the Court? What is it like to be a Supreme Court justice with school-age children? Do the justices get along? What does her normal day look like? How does the Court get its cases? How does it decide them? How does she decide?

In Listening to the Law, Justice Barrett answers these questions and more. She lays out her role (and daily life) as a justice, touching on everything from her deliberation process to dealing with media scrutiny. With the warmth and clarity that made her a popular law professor, she brings to life the making of the Constitution and explains her approach to interpreting its text. Whether sharing stories of clerking for Justice Scalia or walking readers through prominent cases, she invites readers to wrestle with originalism and to embrace the rich heritage of our Constitution.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Audiobook, Law, Book Club, History, Memoir

336 pages, Hardcover

Published September 9, 2025

About the author

Amy Vivian Coney Barrett J.D. (University of Notre Dame Law School, 1997; B.A., Rhodes College (Memphis, Tennessee), 1994) is the 103rd Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was nominated by President Donald Trump to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg upon her death and took the oath of office on October 27, 2020. She is the fifth woman to serve on the court, and one of three such currently sitting.

Previously, Barrett clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, 1998–1999; held the Diane and M.O. Miller II Research Chair of Law at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, 2014–2017; and was a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2017–2020, also appointed by President Trump.

Reviews

[Alison Edgerly · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let me start by saying I did not support her appointment to SCOTUS. I called and asked my Senators to vote against her confirmation. I wouldn't have read this book if it weren't for an online book club. Ok, now that I've made all that clear, this is a must read. 5+ stars. I value her explanation of Constitutional Law. I do not agree with some of her SCOTUS rulings, but I appreciate her explanations of the process. She is, as we all are, human. This book should remind everyone of that. Please read this with a truly open mind and perhaps go forth in civil discourse.

[Stephanie · Rating 2 out of 5]

As part of Sharon McMahon’s online book club, this was our first book this semester. I approached this book with an open mind, even though I do not support Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. I was prepared to set aside my political reservations and give her perspective a fair chance. Unfortunately, I found it less compelling than I’d hoped.

While Barrett is thoughtful in laying out her legal reasoning, I often felt conflicted about how she reached certain conclusions. Her conservatism, which I anticipated disagreeing with, was not the main barrier—it was more the way her arguments felt unbalanced at times and not very persuasive. I expected to at least find the book engaging on an intellectual level, but instead I ended it feeling anxious and underwhelmed.

That said, I recognize the timing of my reading may have influenced my reaction. With today’s political landscape feeling like it’s on fire, it’s difficult to separate her words from the larger context of her role on the Court. I may revisit this book in the future, when emotions and tensions are less raw, to see if my perspective shifts. For now, though, I can’t say I enjoyed it.

[Bryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Justice Barrett explains at the outset that this book is an attempt to make the US Supreme Court, and judging generally, less of a mystery to non-lawyers. To do so, she explains (1.) how the Court and its personnel work, (2.) how the US Constitution and certain important historical events shaped the Court's role, and (3.) her approach to judging. She does an admirable job of speaking plainly about complicated topics, and I think she succeeded at what she set out to do: I am a reasonably literate person who has some interest in what the Court does but doesn't follow it closely, and this book helped me understand all three points better than I did before.

Justice Barrett helpfully describes specific ways that modern justices get along and work together despite their legal disagreements, which are not nearly as partisan as one might assume if one only followed the news about the highest-profile cases. She explains how even judges with similar approaches to the law can come to different conclusions, what drives them to seek consensus, and what limits the scope of their power. Along the way she shares a few anecdotes on her own experience, including as a clerk for Justice Scalia, as a professor, and as a mother juggling all her other responsibilities.

One last note: Justice Barrett writes that she always urges people to "read the opinion," or (if it's too dense) at least read reliable sources that help them understand why the judges decided as they did, rather than make up their minds based on whether they personally like the bottom line. After all, she and other judges she admires reach decisions with outcomes they personally dislike, and change their minds when presented with sound arguments. I'd like to give similar advice to the dozen-plus Goodreads users who gave this book 1-star reviews even before it was published: try to understand Justice Barrett's reasoning before you decide whether it is sound. Show us you've actually grappled with the ideas you dislike; it'll make your opinions more respectable.

[Chelsey Pinto · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm going to be so real right now - I skipped probably 75% of my Civics class my senior year and I am not a big Amy Coney Barrett fan, let alone the Supreme Court at large. But I'm trying to reeducate myself on our government and it's history, and ACB's book fit the order.

This never would have been a book I chose for myself, but at the encouragement of my book club (yay Go Governerds!) I decided to open my brain, and maybe my world view a little wider. If so much of the division today is driven by being stuck in an echo chamber of our own opinions, what a way to step out, right?

Right, actually! Justice Barrett is well educated and well spoken. There's a reason she won favorite law professor and teaching awards multiple times at Notre Dame. Her thoughts are methodical and concise. Although some of the case law she discusses does get a little technical, "thorny" is the word she used and I'm inclined to agree, I was able to follow her for the most part.

She mixes in personal anecdotes about her family and it's history adroitly with current and previous cases, as well as indepth history lessons about the construction of the constitution and it's changes since then.

Barrett also holds the curtain back and lets us have a look at what happens in the Supreme Court. What was it like to be a clerk? What was it like to be there with major heavyweights Antonin Scalia and RBG? Now I can better imagine, and to be perfectly honest I'm jealous. She talks about traditions of the court, some dating back to the 200 years since it's founding. We also learn of more recent traditions such as how new justices and their families are welcomed, and what it feels like to vehemently disagree with someone you are so deeply fond of. She made the distinction that Supreme Court justices are not chosen by the people, or each other, they are appointed by the President, with a term for life. She made the comparison to an arranged marriage with no option of divorce, "so you better get along." which I found thought provoking, especially when there were instances when Justices decidedly did NOT get along.

I think the largest take aways include the dissonance that Justices often feel. As much as they may or may not disagree with a ruling, or a person's actions, they must decide based on the law and precedences of previous cases. And only based on the cases that are brought to them. We learn how those cases are chosen and Barrett gives examples of both older and modern times where she may have felt one way, but the law dictated another. Judges can't just say "I feel it's wrong, so there.' They have to pursue extensive research and produce valid reasoning behind their rulings, often which must stand the test of time. She encourages readers not to just take the headline, but to read the opinion (as long as they might be) and the dissent to better understand why the court decides as it did, and what was a matter of debate between the Justices.

Well written. Vastly informative. Meditative. I appreciate Justice Barrett more now that I've read her book, and I can see where she's striving to come from in the eyes of interpreting the law.

Best lines: "But sparring with intellectual opponents is a way to hear the other side of the argument. An echo chamber repeats mistakes as readily as truths. So refusing to engage with those who disagree is the easy way out. Shunning others just because they disagree with you is also a recipe for a lonely and ultimately unhappy existence."

[Amanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not my usual kind of book and I read (listened to) it for a book club. I ended up really enjoying it though. It’s probably a four star read, but I’m going to balance out some one stars from people who just hate Justice Barrett. This has a few personal details, but is mostly a look at the function of the Supreme Court and how it interprets laws. It would be really good reading for a high school government student. Barrett explains some of her positions both as an originalist and in regards to a few specific cases, but mostly this is about the history of the court and how the US government functions.

One other thing that I had not realized was unusual enough for me to take note, but in fact is – anytime she is speaking of an unspecified person she uses she or her. It was actually amazing to hear every theoretical judge, lawyer or thoughtful person be female.

[Julei · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this. I mean, she took away my right to my own body cuz, sigh, it’s not explicitly in the constitution nor is it a longstanding fundamental right (so only white male colonizer rights are gonna be fundamental, I see).

As it took until 1981 for a woman to be nominated to the Supreme Court one could certainly argue our founders did not intend that either.

If you understand the basics of law you won’t learn anything new. The constitution does not protect every right so expect to lose more.

[Adam Gossman · Rating 5 out of 5]

My first read of this book proved to be edifying, particularly her bits about the constitution and her family.

I’ll revisit a few more times. I recommend those who rate it one star to go back and read it- not your presuppositions about it.

[Brittany · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sharon McMahon always says, “listening to understand doesn’t mean that you agree.”

And this book, which she picked for her current semester of her book club, has been such a good exercise in that for me.
And I am shocked by how much I enjoyed listening to it.

More than anything, the fact that Justice Amy Coney Barrett was a law professor is so clear. The way she explained terms and gives examples in real cases is so helpful.
At one point she talked through why she's an originalist when it comes to looking at the law, and she also describes people who look at it other ways, and I don't think I would agree with her - originalism does not make sense to me as a way to interpret laws, but now I more fully know what it is and why it makes sense to other people. So, I still dislike a lot of the choices she makes based on her view of the law, but at least now I understand it.
I come away from this book respecting how intelligent she is, and I honestly wish this was something that everyone would read to better understand the role of the Court, the Constitution, and the rest of our government.

[Erica Sandey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Closer to 2.75. I disagree with everything this woman stands for. That being said she had a lot of reasonable things to say about how she claims she looks at the law and at the constitution. I would respect her a lot if she evaluated court cases the way she claims she does. I’m not even a lawyer and I could see holes all over the place in how she places weight unevenly across the constitution and all of the amendments. There were interesting parts about how the Supreme Court works and a couple of behind the scenes stories that were kinda cool. Overall just really disappointing that this person is 1/9th of who is deciding a lot of important cases that are and will affect us and generations to come.

[Brianna Tower · Rating 1 out of 5]

Truly the most deserving of a 1 star review that I have come to know recently.

[Amanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, while a very elegant explanation of law, is mostly about the art of listening to each other. Really listening to find grounded solutions and better paths forward, knowing divergent opinion is vital to that process.

[Thomas George Phillips · Rating 5 out of 5]

Justice Barrett is a credit to our SCOTUS. Her confirmation process, however, was conducted by bigots and zealots. Senator Maize Kimono (sic), per her unusual theatrics, attacked Ms. Barrett's faith and family. Fortunately for Justice Barrett, and our nation, Justice Barrett was confirmed.

Justice Barrett writes like a legal scholar. Needless to say some paragraphs all overwhelming to understand.

[Tara · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this for Sharon McMahon's online book club.
ACB tried to combine two different books; one on the history of the Supreme Court and the Constitution, and the other an autobiography. I don't feel that she was successful. I really enjoyed the historical sections. They read like a textbook with a slightly more conversational tone. (I was actually inspired to pull out my old Constitutional Law textbook so I could take a deeper dive into some of the cases.) In comparison, it was jarring to read about the cases decided during her time on the Court. The tone shifted whenever she wrote about something personal, and I felt like she was unloading a bunch of excuses. (I acknowledge that this might be my own bias talking, but if ACB is allowed to be biased, so am I 😉)

[angela]

i liked the font .!

[Altheasus · Rating 1 out of 5]

It took almost two-thirds of the way through the book to get to any of her personal reasoning on cases. Otherwise, it was closer to listening to a very boring teacher explain the basics of the Supreme Court to first graders.

[Beth Anne]

Read for Sharon McMahon’s book club and punctuated by an hour Q&A time with Justice Barrett. The experience of hearing directly and candidly from a sitting Supreme Court Justice was something I could only have dreamed about as a college government student learning about the branches of government and role of the Court. Having studied but also now lived as a politically active adult for over two decades in the US, I found this book to be a mixed bag.

First, I appreciated the personal nature of much of this story. While not a memoir, it’s clear that Justice Barrett has great regard for the Constitution and the government of our country. Her desire with this book is to educate, and even as a student of government, I found that she clarified a few things in ways that were helpful for me.

However, I also came away from both the book and her interview with feelings of frustration. At times I see my own naivety in her words and in other moments I see her as far more disconnected from how things actually function and are and trying too much to wish things to be as they “should.” Everyone in public office, every elected official and aide, every judge and even every voter should act with integrity and seek to uphold the Constitution with the highest level of honor and integrity, sure. But to say that that is happening simply because America still exists is unhelpful and fraught with its own set of problems.

So I came away from this with renewed appreciation that some judges want to be above board (and even that the nature of discussion on the Court is not just civil, but friendly. Perhaps a window into this is what we need to see?), but also that someone can desire to be honorable and still be used as a political tool. I think that it is impossible to not see how politics have shaped the Court, in all times not just now, and I think something does need to change if confidence in the Court is going to grow any time soon. Being more upfront about ethics and transparency is a great place to start.

[Trish · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amy Coney Barrett was something of an enigma to me, she being a woman of so many talents and holding time-consuming jobs while also raising a [huge] family of seven. I know more about her now, and while she didn't answer my every question, I have less concern than before about her judgement. She is a woman and mother after all, and practicality and duty-of-care has some place in her constellation.

Justice Barrett was once a law clerk for Justice Scalia and she has been the only person to make me understand why he was so revered. I have not completely capitulated to his viewpoint, but at least I understand a degree of the issue surrounding "textualism."

She makes the point that SCOTUS is not in the business of enacting laws, as this is down to the legislative branch. It is only when the legislature falls down on their clarity or time wears away original impetus that SCOTUS is called in to interpret. But she does note the U.S. Constitution is particularly difficult to amend:

One scholar, after analyzing the constitutions of thirty-two counties, determined that the U.S. Consitution was by far the most difficult to amend. Here at home, all fifty state constitutions are more easily changed--forty-one of them with a mere majority vote. As a result, all state constitutions have been amended more frequently than the federal Constitution, an average of about 150 times each. The difficulty of the federal amendment process has prompted commentators from across the political spectrum to call for at least a slightly lowered bar. Such a change might be prudent..."

A copy of the Constitution is printed immediately following this memoir. This wasn't a difficult or complex read. It was relatively easy to read because Justice Barrett has a smooth style and because many events she refers to are recent.

[Allison Berkson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I appreciate reading a range of perspectives. Justice Barrett is clearly intelligent and also comes off as naive and privileged. While I was pleasantly surprised by her strong language on certain culture war issues (condeming racism and sexism), based on how she explains her reasoning on current issues, I am not convinced she would have ruled in favor of the rulings that allow the rights she enjoys. She attempts to make constitutional law accessible to the average reader but ultimately achieves infantilization. It was a fine book club read, and I'm excited for the community in which I will get to discuss it.

[alisonwonderland (Alison) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have lots of thoughts and feelings about this book by Supreme Court Justice Barrett. But, bottom line, I’m very glad I took the time to listen to it.

Let me say that I was not in favor of Barrett’s nomination and that I blame her for overturning Roe v. Wade. Still, I appreciated the explanation of her thought process in that decision as well as what she taught me about the Court more generally and about the Constitution. I think she must have been an effective law professor.

Even more, I appreciated her views on the importance of the three branches of government being separate, with checks and balances on each other, and her belief that negotiation and compromise are foundational to democracy.

Most of all, i was happy to come away with a sense of who “Amy” is, as a person, a mother, a person of faith, a human being. After watching an interview of Justice Barrett by Sharon McMahon shortly after I finished the book, I even found myself saying that I quite like her.

If we are going to survive the increasing polarization of the U.S. in recent years and the chaotic, hate-filled rhetoric of the current administration, it’s going to require ordinary people like me seeking peace by acknowledging that we are all Americans and that we are more alike than we are different. I’m trying to do my part.

[Missy · Rating 1 out of 5]

So we have a book from the Supreme Court full of propaganda for us to just gobble up. She didn't deserve to be on the court and she wasn't deserving of a book deal. For a woman claiming to "listen to the law" she sure makes up her own based on her religion a lot.

[Barry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybe 3.5 stars (between good and really good)

Early on, this book felt a bit like a response to an eighth grader’s question about what life is like in the Supreme Court, but as it goes on it becomes progressively more complex and interesting.

ACB gives some biographical details about her life, extolls the value (and shortcomings) of our federalist system, and and presents her judicial philosophy. She explains why she favors textualism over both purposivism and original intent, providing plenty of helpful examples of particular cases illustrating how these perspectives and the use of canons of interpretation influence decision-making on the court.
I never attended law school—but I’ve stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, and her take seems eminently reasonable to me.

[Terrah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Probably wouldn’t have read it on my own, but picked it up as part of Sharon’s Governerd bookclub. I found Part 1 super interesting and the subsequent parts just fine. I was more interested in hearing about her experiences as a judge and career path than her legal approach.

I did love her quote at the end. She said people often ask if she likes her job She alluded to feeling that it’s not about what she get out of it, but instead, this about public service:

“Sometimes it is rewarding. Other times it is costly. It is always, however, a privilege.”

I look forward to hearing more of her perspective at the (online) author meet for bookclub. Whether I agree with her approach or not, it’s interesting to learn more about someone with such influence on our country.

[Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 stars

Don’t judge me, but I kind of liked this book. I was very leery going into reading this because I don’t agree with much of ACB’s rulings. The first half was definitely more engaging, talking about the supreme court and life as a justice. I loved how when talking about hypothetical people she always used she/her pronouns. The second half was more of a slog; at times I felt like I needed to go to law school to follow her arguments. I appreciated her explanation of originalism in relation to the constitution, even if I don’t agree with it. At times I felt she was justifying her decisions in certain high profile cases. My final takeaway was that my moral views of right and wrong won’t always line up with everyone’s interpretation of the law, and short of going to law school and/or studying into this much more in depth that’s not likely to change. I walked away with a greater respect for what the courts in general try to navigate. Now I need to learn from others who have a different philosophy about the law because…balance.

[Lauren Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned so much! Really enjoyed this deep dive and finding even more respect for our Constitution. Amy is such an example of strength, poise, and eloquence.


“Choosing truth over status requires strength of character, and achieving it requires mastering the natural impulse to be a people pleaser.”

“The Constitution does not permit us each to go our own way. The document contains our commitment to common values… It mixes respect for difference with agreed-upon ground rules.”

“The Constitution required compromise at its conception, and living under it requires compromise now. And even if we, like the framers, see imperfections in our nation's charter, we should not lose faith in the constitutional project. I'm with Benjamin Franklin: perfection is too a high a bar for fallible humans to attain. But when I consider the freedom, prosperity, and stability that our Constitution has secured for more than two centuries, I share Franklin's astonishment that this system has attained so much.
And when I contemplate the future, I am optimistic about its continued
success.”

[Whitney · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really loved this book so much. There were parts that were more complex than I could totally follow, but overall, it gave me a good look inside the Supreme Court. It also gave me more respect for Justice Barrett. She hasn't been one of my favorites for a variety of reasons, but I respect her decision making process and the why behind what she does. I think this is a good read for everyone.

[Sarah Wallerz · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned heaps reading this book. Justice Barrett does an incredible job of explaining the role of the Supreme Court, as well as the history. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

[Noah Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

Combination of career memoir, concise explanations of the history and workings of the US courts and Constitution, and a defense of a particular philosophy of Supreme Court judgment.

Each part is excellent. She’s a very clear, unpretentious, and human writer, which is important given her goals here.

The memoir part was probably the most engaging, just because of all the fun and fascinating anecdotes. The US civics part was probably the most beneficial for me, because it made me realize how much we all forget about our system. She discusses the ‘basics’, but I don’t think what she says is ‘basic’ in the sense of being part of common knowledge. People, including me, genuinely don’t know or at least don’t keep in mind some very relevant facts about the country’s history. Among other things, the history contextualizes contemporary political problems in a satisfying way. Our now-problems make more sense in light of their then-problems

The final part was the most intellectually interesting, and I’d need a lot more time and reading before having a real “take” on it. She argues for originalism about constitutional law without literalism. (Tangent: I wonder if the literatures on constitutional originalism and biblical inspiration/inerrancy/interpretation intersect often. I sense lots of common argument patterns.) The biggest challenge for the view is one she recognizes: the existence of compelling reasons NOT to rule as an originalist in particular cases, in light of either: broader standards of governance like federalism, or else the unusual facts of particular cases. She admits a “tension” there and says that ultimately judges should “proceed carefully.” That’s a fine view, and I’m always sympathetic to arguments that good decision-making usually isn’t algorithmic. But for any outsider, navigating the “tension” in Barrett’s way will look arbitrary—the text of the law is what matters most, except for those times when it doesn’t matter as much as something else. I’m not sure an alternative view can do any better, because I’ve now read all of ONE book about constitutional law, but this seems like a real and deep challenge to me.

I need to keep thinking about her strict view of the division of labor between congress and the courts. She explicitly says a judge’s job is not to Do Justice in each particular case; it’s to interpret the law as applied to the case. If a law has a bad result, it’s Congress’s job to do something about it in conformity with the will of the people. So she must think of Justice as something that emerges from a proper relationship between laws and judges, not something that either the laws or the judges consciously try to implement. That’s an interesting ideas. The agents themselves don’t implement justice or even try to be Just in the ordinary sense. Something about that is counterintuitive but I’m not sure where to go.

Overall, great book.

[Leanne · Rating 1 out of 5]

My piece on Amy Coney Barrett's new book "Listening to the Law" and what is fundamentally WRONG AND ABSENT from her purpose as a Supreme Court Justice. AN IMPORTANT READ.

LAW AS HARM MITIGATION: RECONSIDERING THE SUPREME COURT.

On an unremarkable autumn afternoon in Washington, Amy Coney Barrett took her seat at the long, polished table, the weight of a nation’s expectations settled quietly across her shoulders. Cameras flashed, senators postured, and the air hung heavy with the rituals of confirmation—the pledges, the personal stories, the recitations of resume and family. Barrett, unruffled, offered her now-famous serenity: seven children, a keen mind, a résumé burnished by all the right institutions. Yet beneath the surface, the moment was freighted with a question older than the Court itself, and far more consequential than the headlines would have us believe. Why do we have laws at all? And what, truly, is the purpose of those charged with interpreting them?

Barrett’s recent book, Listening to the Law, offers her answer, or at least her method: fidelity to text, the discipline of original meaning, a kind of judicial humility that echoes the Founders’ own anxieties. She invites us to see the judge as a careful listener—one who sifts argument from rhetoric, applies the law as written, and resists the temptations of empathy or activism. In Barrett’s rendering, the judge is a custodian, not a creator; the law, a fixed instrument, not an evolving moral force.

But this, of course, is only one story. The deeper tradition—one that pulses beneath the marble pillars and echoes through the country’s most wrenching conflicts—sees law as something more than an exercise in textual fidelity. The Constitution was not written to prop up the powerful or to provide a stable career for the ambitious. It was drafted at the end of a long, bruising revolution, forged in the hope that a nation of strangers could find a way to live together without tearing itself apart. Its animating spirit was not order for its own sake, but harm reduction—an attempt, however flawed, to limit the injuries people inflict on one another, and to reconcile the damage already done.

History is unambiguous on this point. Again and again, the Supreme Court has been forced to confront the raw harm at the heart of American life. In 1954, facing the segregated schools of Topeka, Kansas, the Court did not simply listen to arguments. It looked at children—tiny, nervous, aware of the world’s unfairness—and saw that “separate but equal” was, in fact, a lie. The decision in Brown v. Board of Education was not about perfect fidelity to text, but about the wound segregation inflicted, the psychic violence of exclusion, and the urgent need to mitigate it.

The same impulse can be traced through Loving v. Virginia, which struck down bans on interracial marriage, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry. In each case, the law had become a tool of harm, an instrument of humiliation or erasure. In each case, the Court’s highest duty was not to retreat behind the shield of original meaning, but to step forward and reconcile the law with the fundamental rights of being human.

Barrett’s ascension to the bench came at a time of fracture—political, cultural, even epistemological. Her critics saw in her originalism a refusal to reckon with the lived realities of the vulnerable; her supporters, a bulwark against the perceived excesses of judicial activism. Yet lost in the noise was a more basic reckoning: the Supreme Court is not a prize for the deserving, nor is it a stage for the performance of personal virtue. It is the nation’s last mechanism for managing harm when all else fails—when legislatures deadlock, when presidents stumble, when the people themselves cannot agree.

To be a justice is not to referee a game, nor to preside over a business. It is to stand at the intersection of law and suffering, to measure harm, to weigh the cost of action and inaction. The job is not merely to listen to arguments, but to listen for the crack in the foundation, the place where the law no longer holds against the tide of human need. The judge must be, above all, a reconciler—a mitigator of damage, a steward of rights, a custodian of the fragile peace that law, at its best, can offer.

Consider the story of Mildred and Richard Loving, driven from their home by the simple fact of their marriage. For years, the courts listened—patiently, technically, impersonally. But it was not until the Supreme Court recognized the harm at the center of their case that justice was done. The Constitution, the Court wrote, exists not to memorialize prejudice, but to “protect the dignity of all persons.” This is the deepest function of law: not to validate the status quo, but to repair what is broken, to reduce harm wherever possible.

Barrett’s Listening to the Law is a thoughtful, rigorous meditation on judicial method. But method, no matter how disciplined, cannot answer the oldest question: when law and harm collide, which takes precedence? The answer, for a nation that purports to value justice above all, must always be harm. The law is not sacred because it is old, or because it is written in beautiful language. It is sacred because it gives us a way to manage our violence, to limit our cruelty, and to imagine a peace that is more than the absence of conflict.

As Barrett takes her seat among the nine, she inherits not just a tradition of listening, but a duty to reduce the harms that mark American life. The Supreme Court is not a family business, nor a career achievement, nor a branch of capitalism. It is, in its highest form, a place where the country reconciles itself to its own failures—and tries, haltingly, to do better.

If the law means anything, it is this: the work of justice is the work of harm reduction. To sit in judgment is to accept the burden of that history, to read not just the words on the page, but the wounds in the world. The Constitution endures not because it is perfect, but because, in the right hands, it can bend—however slightly—toward repair.

Leanne Edwards

[Sarah Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I learned a lot from this book, but it really scratches the surface of the topic and has made me want to read more, both from other legal professionals as well as some primary SCOTUS documents. I do think it's a good starting place for someone curious about SCOTUS; Coney-Barrett's expertise as a former law professor is evident in her ability to explain difficult concepts with helpful examples.

I never understood the English-major-to- legal-professional pipeline before, and now I get it. Textual analysis is a key component of judicial work. However, while I find the textual expertise required for judicial work appealing, I don't think I'll be pursuing law any time soon. Coney-Barrett makes clear that judges' obligations of fidelity to the Constitution (and to statutory law) often require them to make decisions they might personally find unappealing, which requires an emotional distance I know I would find challenging. Moreover, legal work can have a certain rigidity that I am certainly not suited for, particularly for judges like Coney-Barrett who are part of the "Originalist" school of legal thought.

I was relieved to learn that Originalism is not, as I mistakenly thought (perhaps because other voices in the general public misunderstand too), the belief that the original form of the Constitution, pre-amendment, is the most important or reliable. Coney-Barrett was refreshingly open about her belief that amendment is an essential part of Constitutional development which has enshrined important rights: she acknowledges that as a woman and a mother of adopted Black children, the 14th and 19th amendments protect the citizenship of herself and her loved ones, and that these are legitimate and positive updates.

Rather, originalism is the belief that the text of the law as it would have been read at the time it was written supersedes the intent behind the law; i.e. that we should not ascribe a modern reading and context onto a historic text with a particular context. This doesn't mean guessing at how the founders of our nation would have responded to issues like AI or LGBTQ rights or international business. The same argument we use in literary studies applies here: we can't read the (dead) author's mind. All we have is the text, so that's what must be relied upon to draw conclusions or reach decisions. An originalist gives primacy to the language in front of them and tries to honor what that language would have meant to an informed reader at the time it was written. This often involves research and consulting other sources contemporary with the original text.

Coney-Barrett explains that even justices who do not identify as originalists think that the historical context of the Constitution is important, but that they may disagree on the matter of how much weight to give to historical considerations. She doesn't describe the opposing school of thought, Living Constitutionalism, in depth (I had to Google it to find out what it was called!) I'll have to seek out another source to learn more about that from someone who practices it. I found Coney-Barrett's argument for her school of thought interesting but certainly not 100% convincing. I think I need more information before I know what to conclude.

Essentially, Coney-Barrett wants more Americans to understand that SCOTUS decisions are not as arbitrary or as personally motivated as they may seem. She strongly and repeatedly encourages citizens to read both the majority and dissenting opinions on cases that interest them. I learned that some SCOTUS decisions seem vague or dodge the definition of key terms not because justices are cowardly or lazy, but because getting other justices to join an opinion sometimes means leaving a controversial point undecided as a compromise. "Over-legislating" can break down consensus or rush the court toward an underdeveloped conclusion. In fact, certain cases that justices agree are important may go unheard because the justices want to see lower courts and other legal professionals develop an area of the law further before enshrining a shaky stance on a new controversy into the body of law.

Like many other areas of our democracy, the judicial branch is designed to operate in a way that prioritizes balance and stability over efficiency. I find this a bit less frustrating now that I understand it better, which means Coney-Barrett has succeeded in one of her central aims for the book. Still, I find that I don't share her optimism about the current performance of the court as it seeks to fill its role in the larger American scheme today, and I felt that she glossed over some concerns that to me seem serious and urgent. I was left questioning what happens when the courts interpret the text of the law appropriately, but to an unjust outcome - or, deeply relevant today, what can be done if a court decision goes ignored and there is no existing mechanism to enforce it.

Still, a lot of clarity and insight gained here from a skilled writer who seems to take her commitment to public service seriously.

[Amber]

DNF - no amount of memoiring can make me appreciate, try to understand or want to read about Amy Coney Barrett.