Advisory Opinions – BONUS: Judge Patrick Bumatay Interviews Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Date: October 4, 2025
Location: SCOTUS Blog Summit, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Center, Washington, D.C.

Episode Overview

This special bonus episode features an in-depth conversation between Ninth Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, recorded at the 2025 SCOTUS Blog Summit. The interview traverses Justice Barrett's upbringing, academic and judicial career, judicial philosophy, and her new book Listening to the Law. Listeners are treated to candid tales, substantive legal discussion, reflections on institutional norms, and advice for both law students and judges—all in a lively, approachable tone.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Justice Barrett's Early Life and Family (03:25–07:57)

• New Orleans Roots: Oldest of seven, with deep family ties in the city.

  “There's a real sense of rootedness, a real sense of closeness both to my siblings... and then my aunts and uncles and larger extended family.” (04:08, Barrett)

• Jobs & Early Aspirations: Lifeguard at Jewish Community Center; loved reading and teaching; considered both law and academia due to parents’ influences.
• Law School Decision: Chose law school over English grad school after thoughtful deliberation.
• Law School Reflections:

  “I loved it. I mean, I didn't like the stress… but I did actually really love it.” (07:10, Barrett)

• Advice to Prospective Law Students:

  “I don't think you should make the investment… unless you know that it's something you want to do. Don't just do it as a default.” (07:27, Barrett)

Clerkships and Early Legal Career (07:57–11:01)

• Judge Laurence Silberman (D.C. Circuit): Taught her the value of relationships and collegiality.
• Justice Antonin Scalia (Supreme Court):

  “I learned a lot about analysis, a lot about writing, a lot about how to be quick witted and articulate… And discipline. The discipline of following the law where it leads.” (09:15, Barrett)

• Favorite D.C. Haunts: Spent time at AV Ristorante, frequented by both of her judicial mentors.
• Bush v. Gore Involvement: As a young associate at Baker Botts, was dispatched to Florida, found the experience “very interesting for a young lawyer.” (10:08–10:35, Barrett)
• Refused Comment on Supreme Court's Decision: Invoked standard of not opining on potential or past SCOTUS cases.

Academic Career and Scholarship (11:01–14:03)

• Academic Turn: Realized her love for teaching; Notre Dame offered her a “dream job.”
• Stare Decisis Scholarship: Argued for a weaker form in lower courts, particularly for statutory interpretation.

  “Stare decisis... comes in like tall, grande, venti... weakest in constitutional cases... super strong in statutory interpretation.” (11:54, Barrett)

• Shift from Professor to Judge:

  “When you're a law professor, you get to write about the law as you think it should be. But when you're… a judge, you have to take the law as it is.” (13:05, Barrett)

Life in South Bend and Move to the Bench (14:03–16:07)

• Notre Dame Life: Enjoyed tailgating with an antique green fire truck, misses her CrossFit gym most.
• Confirmation Process Reflections:

  “I would say that it's pretty much all a lowlight… If you're going through hell, keep on going. And that's kind of what the confirmation process is like.” (16:07, Barrett)

Faith and Public Life (15:05–15:52)

• On Accusations About Her Faith:

  “It was unexpected and a little uncomfortable to have my faith be kind of in the spotlight after that hearing. But… it's a big part of my life. So, you know, I'm not ashamed of it.” (15:22, Barrett)

Life and Philosophy on the Supreme Court (17:20–46:18)

• Symbolism of the Black Robe:

  “John Marshall started the practice as a sign of judicial humility… dressing in black… shows we are united in the business of impartial interpretation and application of the law.” (17:32, Barrett)

• Shift from Academia and Lower Courts:

  “On a multi-member court… you have to find a path you can have a majority for.” (20:10, Barrett)

• Educational Diversity: Skeptical that educational pedigree (Ivy vs. non-Ivy) matters for judicial work, but recognizes value in widening the lens and rejects elitism.

Judicial Philosophy: Originalism, Restraint, and Majority Opinions (25:17–41:04)

• Originalism Defined:

  "Originalism is the approach… which says that the original public meaning of the text at the time of its ratification… is determinative when it’s discernible.” (25:37, Barrett)

• Restraint vs. Activism: Sees restraint as a valuable byproduct, not the rationale for originalism.
• Text, History, and Tradition: Subtle distinctions drawn in how these methods interact with originalism; referenced her Rahimi and Vidal v. Elster opinions.
• Major Questions Doctrine: Explained as a “linguistic canon,” not a policy tool. Compared statutory construction to parental instructions given to babysitters.

  "Just because we understand how we use language." (34:39, Barrett)

• Concurring Opinions: Sparing with concurrences but writes when she sees it as contributing or clarifying doctrine, e.g., her separate writing in Scurmeti on “suspect class” for transgender cases.

Court Dynamics, Labels, and the “Swing Justice” Narrative (41:04–44:31)

• Judicial “Axes” and Labels:

  “Judges, I don’t think of myself that way… I think the institution matters… but I think my other eight colleagues would agree.” (41:36, Barrett)

• On Being Labeled the Swing Justice: Resists the term; prefers to “just play it straight” and stick to her philosophy.
• Agreement Stats: Notes that even her lowest agreement percentage (~68% with Justice Jackson) is still “more frequently than infrequently.” (43:49, Barrett)

Demystifying the Court: Public Perceptions and Decision-Making (46:18–48:27)

• Misunderstandings About the Court:

  “I want people to understand… that we are engaged in a legal enterprise. We issue decisions that make plain our reasons.” (46:18, Barrett)

Case Selection and Recusal Practices (47:23–52:09)

• “Perfect Vehicle” for SCOTUS Grants: Explains the need for a representative, not obstructed, fact pattern—“nothing’s perfect,” but the aim is to decide broad legal questions cleanly.
• Recusal Decisions & Non-Disclosure Explained:

  "Recently some justices have started to identify bases for recusal, although that's new... If you identify reasons, you have to do it across the board... So I think it's just better not to say." (48:42–52:09, Barrett)

On Legal Practice and Technology (52:09–54:31)

• On “Dissentals”:

  “From the Supreme Court's point of view, more information is always helpful; from the court of appeals, collegiality must be weighed.” (52:39, Barrett)

• AI in Chambers: Not currently used for substantive work due to security and confidentiality.

  “Nor could we just because of security protocols... All the large language models upload, and then... it's not secure.” (53:24, Barrett)

• Curious About Tech: Sounded interested in tools that turn law review articles into podcasts for multi-tasking.

Lightning Round & Personal Touches (54:38–58:28)

• Circuit Court Traits:
  • Ninth Circuit: “Judge Bumatay.”
  • Fifth Circuit: “New Orleans home.”
  • D.C. Circuit: “Administrative law.”
  • Seventh Circuit: “Favorite.” (55:00)
• Favorite Amendment: “The 19th is particularly meaningful, but I love the whole Constitution.” (55:06)
• Favorite Supreme Court Opinion: “Marbury is a safe one.” (55:22)
• Favorite Dissent:

  “Justice Scalia's in Morrison vs. Olson… this wolf comes as a wolf. What a great line." (55:36, Barrett)

• Recent Book & Music Recommendations:
  • Book: The Lincoln Highway; The Woman Who Smashed Codes (cryptography biography) (57:33)
  • Music: Family mix of Encanto, Crazy Train, choral music, and 90s/2000s nostalgia (56:56)
• Guilty Pleasure:

  “Jesse and I… do watching Netflix at night. At this point, we don't have a ton of time for guilty pleasures.” (58:02)

• D.C. Restaurant: Declined to specify, humorously prioritizing her anonymity.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “You know, you have to be ready for anything. Even in a smaller [confirmation] moot, someone would burst in and start yelling... so you could continue to go.” (16:38, Barrett)
• On recusal explanations:
  “If you start doing it, you will have to do it across the board... I think it's just better not to say.” (49:00, Barrett)
• On “swing” label:
  “That makes it sound like you are swinging back and forth and you can't make up your mind. And that is not my approach to judging.” (42:59, Barrett)
• On critics and public pressure:
  "You just have to tune it out. Because it's the job of a judge not to... That's why we have life tenure." (24:02, Barrett)
• On balance of law and life:
  “Jesse and I... do watching Netflix at night. At this point, we don't have a ton of time for guilty pleasures.” (58:02, Barrett)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 03:25 — Justice Barrett’s family and New Orleans upbringing
• 07:10 — Law school reflections and advice
• 09:15 — Lessons from Justice Scalia
• 10:08 — Bush v. Gore experience
• 11:54 — Stare decisis: lower courts vs. Supreme Court
• 14:12 — South Bend stories and tailgating
• 15:05 — “The dogma lives loudly within you” and faith in public life
• 16:07 — Confirmation process: playlist and struggles
• 17:32 — Symbolism of the black robe
• 20:10 — Shift from academia to courts
• 22:39 — The Court’s Ivy League makeup; educational diversity
• 25:37 — Defining originalism
• 29:27 — History, tradition, and Second Amendment doctrine
• 34:39 — Major questions doctrine
• 41:36 — On institutionalism and judicial “labels”
• 42:59 — Swing justice narrative
• 46:18 — Biggest public misunderstanding about Supreme Court
• 47:41 — Why SCOTUS needs a “perfect vehicle” for a case
• 48:42 — Recusal, disclosure, and ethics
• 52:39 — The pros and cons of dissentals
• 53:24 — On AI and technology in chambers
• 54:38 — Lightning round: courts, favorites, and guilty pleasures

Conclusion

This episode provides a rare, multifaceted portrait of Justice Barrett: personal, doctrinal, and institutional. Listeners gain insight into her judicial philosophy, concerns for institutional legitimacy, approach to teaching, collegiality, and her refusal to be pigeonholed by popular media narratives of the Court. Judge Bumatay delivers incisive, respectful, and sometimes playful questions, resulting in a conversation that is both illuminating for legal enthusiasts and highly accessible for a general audience.