Amy Coney Barrett is an associate justice of the US Supreme Court. She joined in 2020, taking the seat formerly held by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Barrett recently wrote Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution. The book’s stated goal is to answer questions about the court and its role. But for a sitting justice to write this sort of book, considering her extraordinary obligations including a large family, it is clear that more is at play. Barrett, who was a US Circuit Court judge before the promotion, is generally considered to be a conservative jurist. She has consistently resisted that label, affirming that she is “nobody’s justice.” Listening to the Law is a primer on the US Constitution, Supreme Court, and an argument for continued faith in the constitutional system. Ultimately, it is also an argument about Barrett’s conception of her responsibilities on the court.
Unquestionably brilliant, Barrett earned a JD from Notre Dame, clerked for Laurence Silberman and Antonin Scalia, and then became a tenured faculty member in the law school at Notre Dame. She taught for many years before becoming a judge. Appreciating her academic background offers insight into Listening to the Law. While Barrett offers personal history and anecdotes, they are sparse and judiciously applied in service of making a legal or constitutional point accessible.
How to explain the value of a written constitution? Barrett references a family recipe for shrimp remoulade passed down by word of mouth. What does the court offer? Opinions, and she wants people to read them, just as one of her brothers in law did during the annual family reunion. Are justices textualists? Barrett explains what that means through a discussion of her grandmother and grandfather’s courtship letters, which were transcribed and became a book for the family. Understanding the context in which the letters was written is essential to understanding what they are about, Barrett affirms. She attests that justices do the same when ascertaining the meaning of legislation.
It is an effective way to render basic legal and political concepts, a model familiar to teachers and ideal for introductory courses. This is the strength of Listening to the Law. The first section reviews the courts and its work. Long on process, it opens an interesting window into the business of the court: who does what and when. Barrett goes deeper into history in section two on the US Constitution, and in the third part titled “Thinking About the Law,” Barrett works to explain how decisions are made.
Well-written throughout, the book is more reminiscent of a textbook than a monograph or memoir. One review called it “a controlled performance, as careful and disciplined as its author.” This book is a very clever way to enter the public sphere, assert a position of judicial reasonableness, without political or partisan commitment. For this reader, it also reinforced a lesson from graduate school in history: make sure to pay attention to what people do, not just what they write. It is exactly the kind of book that one would assign in political science or law courses. As a work of history, though, it reveals little about why this argument or that held sway in the court’s decision-making.
For all the personal anecdotes, Barrett is opaque through Listening to the Law. Again, an academic lens is helpful. If we think of her as a smart and disciplined professor, she will earn our respect and we will never really know, as one of her students, what she might be thinking. Personally, I believe that a bit more prioritization of beliefs or values, perhaps more justice and less process, would have garnered her even more respect for this carefully crafted book.
David Potash