Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett shared her thoughts on the challenge of balancing her constitutional duties with personal beliefs in an excerpt from “Law While Listening: Courts and the Constitutional Reflections,” published by the free press on Wednesday.
Barrett, appointed by former President Donald Trump in October 2020, reflected on the internal conflicts she experienced following her appointment to succeed the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, particularly when addressing one of her initial cases.
Shortly after taking office, Barrett and her fellow justices deliberated on the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who had been convicted for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. While the U.S. Court of Appeals had vacated Tsarnaev’s sentence, the Department of Justice contended that this decision was incorrect.
“For me, death penalty cases present conflicts between law and my personal beliefs. Before becoming a judge or a member of the bar, I co-authored an academic piece voicing moral objections to capital punishment,” she recalled. “The conflict I feel between my beliefs and my judicial responsibilities is something I can’t easily escape, especially since individuals sentenced to death almost always challenge their sentences on appeal.”
Although Barrett personally opposes the death penalty, she ultimately sided with the government, supporting the reinstatement of Tsarnaev’s death sentence.
She pointed out that her position isn’t the sole option available to her. Despite her views on capital punishment, she sought to find a way that could favor defendants facing such sentences. However, she admitted that the strength of Tsarnaev’s arguments complicated her decision-making, raising the question of whether her morals influenced her ruling.
“It would have been a dereliction of duty. The framers of the Constitution do not share my views on the death penalty, and neither do all my fellow citizens today,” she noted.
Barrett stated that if she altered the law to reflect her stance on capital punishment, she would undermine voters’ autonomy, which wouldn’t grant her the right to align her decisions with her own ethical or policy beliefs.
“Casting those votes was uncomfortable. I wish our system functioned differently. But I firmly believe that voting to uphold this sentence was the right thing for me,” she asserted. “Had I thought that casting such a vote was immoral, or if I believed I couldn’t fairly assess the case, then the appropriate action would have been to recuse myself.”
The justice clarified that the court’s ruling did not endorse the morality of executing Tsarnaev but rather upheld the legal framework for imposing the death penalty on convicted terrorists.
Ultimately, Barrett emphasized that judges are not kings, but rather serve a fundamental role within the legal system.
