Chief Justice John Roberts may emerge as the pivotal vote in two politically charged cases on abortion and presidential immunity the Supreme Court heard. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s third nominee, has been a reliable vote for the conservative bloc but has shown her independence during oral arguments this week. Barrett has positioned herself between her most conservative colleagues and the court’s liberals, indicating she may play a critical role in important and divisive decisions by the end of this term.
Barrett owned the arguments during high-profile hearings, including questioning Idaho’s lawyer on the strict abortion ban and nudging an attorney for former President Donald Trump into concessions. She has been comfortable staking out territory between the more conservative and progressive blocs on the court, as seen in her recent actions during oral arguments. Barrett’s exchange in the abortion arguments was shared widely on social media, showing her ability to engage with difficult legal issues and potentially shape the court’s final decisions.
As the second-least senior justice, Barrett was central in the nearly three-hour oral argument about Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity in Jack Smith’s election subversion case. Barrett questioned both Trump’s attorney and the special counsel, indicating her views on whether the prosecution can proceed by focusing on private acts rather than official ones. Ilya Somin, a law professor, described Barrett as a key player in the immunity case and noted that she believes most of the conduct alleged against Trump seems private rather than official.
During oral arguments in the abortion case, Barrett challenged Idaho’s attorney on exemptions for emergency complications under the state’s strict ban on the procedure. Barrett’s direct questioning revealed potential inconsistencies in Idaho’s position on how emergency conditions would be treated under the ban. Her questions aimed to clarify whether Idaho’s doctors can comply with both the state’s ban on abortion and federal law requiring them to stabilize pregnant patients in medical emergencies. Barrett’s approach during the oral arguments demonstrated her commitment to thoroughly examining the issues at hand without indicating her own stance.
Justice Barrett’s exchanges during oral arguments show her ability to pressure test an advocate’s points and delve deeper into the complexities of the legal issues at play. By engaging with the lawyers on both sides and seeking clarity on key issues, Barrett showcased her analytical skills and willingness to challenge assumptions and positions. As a potentially pivotal vote on the Supreme Court, Barrett’s stance in high-profile cases like abortion and presidential immunity could have significant implications for the court’s decisions and the legal landscape in the coming term. Her actions during these arguments suggest she may play an increasingly important role in shaping the court’s rulings.
