Four days before the 2016 presidential election, the Supreme Court honored Justice Antonin Scalia in a ceremony that underscored his legacy as both a jurist and a figure of profound influence. For many, including this writer, the event carried a sense of loss, not only for Scalia himself but for the jurisprudential principles he championed. The impending transition of power seemed poised to erode his impact, with Hillary Clinton’s likely victory raising fears that his seat would be filled by a more progressive appointee. However, the trajectory of Scalia’s legacy took an unexpected turn.
Amy Coney Barrett, then a Notre Dame law professor and a former Scalia clerk, emerged as a pivotal figure in preserving and expanding his vision. Her ascension to the Supreme Court under President Trump marked a culmination of efforts to reshape the judiciary. Barrett’s nomination in 2017, followed by her confirmation amid intense scrutiny—particularly from Senator Dianne Feinstein—solidified her role as a conservative icon. When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, Barrett became the natural choice to replace her, ensuring the Court’s continued alignment with Scalia’s principles.
Barrett’s five-year tenure has seen significant doctrinal shifts reflecting Scalia’s influence. She provided the critical fifth vote to return abortion policy to state legislatures, upheld the rejection of racial preferences in university admissions, and contributed to the demise of the Lemon test under the Establishment Clause. These decisions underscore her commitment to originalism and textualism, which she elaborates on in her book Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and the Constitution.
In the book, Barrett offers a clear-eyed look at judicial work, emphasizing the importance of resisting personal biases and adhering strictly to legal texts. She details her approach to case analysis, including her preference for drafting opinions by hand—a stark contrast to Scalia’s early adoption of technology. Barrett also explores the history of the Constitution and federalism, defending originalism as a method that prioritizes understanding the text’s meaning at the time of its creation rather than imposing modern interpretations.
While Barrett acknowledges disagreements with some conservative colleagues on the pace of legal reforms, her focus remains on fidelity to the law. Her book, though not a memoir, briefly touches on balancing family life with professional rigor, highlighting her disciplined approach and deep faith.
As the Court continues to grapple with its role in American governance, Barrett’s work stands as a testament to Scalia’s enduring influence—a legacy she has helped cement through unwavering dedication to constitutional principles.