BONUS | Judge Patrick Bumatay Interviews Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Summary

---

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.

Transcript

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

This is a real good story about Bronx and his dad, Ryan, Real United Airlines customers.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

We were returning home and one of the flight attendants asked Bronx if he wanted to see the flight deck and meet Kath and Andrew.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I got to sit in the driver's seat.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

I grew up in an aviation family and seeing Bronx kind of reminded me of myself when I was that age.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

That's Andrew, a real United pilot.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

These small interactions can shape a kid's future.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

It felt like I was the captain.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Allowing my son to see the flight deck will stick with us forever. That's how good leads the [e-mail], it's not just about window treatments. It's about you. Your style, your space, your way. Whether you DIY or want the pros to handle it all, you'll have the confidence of knowing it's done right. From free expert design help to our 100% satisfaction guarantee, everything we do is made to fit your life and your windows. [e-mail], the only thing we treat better than windows is you. Visit blinds.com now for up to 50% off primetime deals and free professional installation Rules and restrictions apply.

[Podcast Host / Narrator]

Welcome to special bonus episode of Advisory Opinions. We are going to play for you the conversation between Judge Patrick Bhumate of the Ninth Circuit and Justice Amy Coney Barrett at the 2025 SCOTUS Blog Summit on the Merits hosted at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg center in downtown Washington, D.C. now there's a lot of fun stuff in here. I would just say, like come for the fun tailgating stories at Notre Dame football, but still day for one of the most expansive explanations of why justices don't explain their recusals on the court that I've ever heard. And if you'd like to hear more of the SCOTUS Blog Summit 2025, you can sign up for our SCOTUS Today newsletters where they will be sending out all four panel videos from the SCOTUS Blog Summit 2025, including the first panel with the law professors, moderated by Jody Cantor of the New York Times. Another panel with three of the chief legal officers in the country, Walmart Meta Citibank moderated by David Latt. Really interesting panel about how the biggest companies in the world think about litigation at the Supreme Court in particular, and then finally our judicial panel moderated by Steve Inskeep of npr, where you see, you know, how it actually works when you're the one trying to apply Supreme Court precedent to so many of the other cases in the country. So sign up for the SCOTUS Today newsletter if you'd like to see more from the SCOTUS Blog Summit 2025. But now for your special bonus episode of Advisory Opinions.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Ready?

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

I was born Read. It's my honor to welcome Justice Barrett to the inaugural SCOTUS Blog Summit. Sarah mentioned you'll get a copy of her new book, Listening to the Law. In my view, the book is a great read for everyone, for lawyers and non lawyers alike. For SCOTUS blog junkies like yourselves, I'm sure, and those that know nothing about the court at all. So I really commend you to go read it. The way I'd like to start this interview is to go through Justice Barrett's early life and career and then move on to more substantive topics, like about the law or the court. So, Justice Barrett, welcome.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I'm delighted to be here.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Well, thank you. Before we begin our interview, I think I need to break some news. It was announced earlier this week that your book would debut as number three on the New York Times bestseller. So congratulations. That's great to be here. Yeah. Well, what I think is actually even more impressive is that you beat Charlie Sheen. His book is only 4 on the new York Times bestseller list. So how do you feel about beating each other?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

You're not the first person to observe that.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yes. Yeah. Those of us that are our generation, that's a pretty big deal. So, anyway, let's start. So from your book, it's clear that family is very important to you. Chapter one is all about your family story. Can you tell us a little bit about your family's story?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Sure. So I grew up in New Orleans. I'm the oldest of seven children, and we had a large extended family in New Orleans, and my family on both sides and lived there for generations. So there was a real sense of rootedness, a real sense of closeness, both to my siblings, who are now my closest friends, and then my aunts and uncles and larger extended family. Which is why I say in the book, I don't think I've ever really shaken the desire to go back to New Orleans. We didn't. I went to Notre Dame and became a law professor and we moved here. We've never made it back, but we visit often.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah. I've always wondered, why don't you have a New Orleans accent?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Well, you know, people think that New Orleans have Southern. New Orleans have Southern accents, but we don't. It's actually a different. And I have lost it over time, but it sounds more like embarrassed instead of embarrassed water. It's almost Like a little Bostony. Oh, I bet.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah, that makes sense. So besides having your family there, why is New Orleans a special place to you? Is there anything about it that you really enjoy or miss?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Oh, well, I mean, I love the sense of tradition and culture. The food, the music, Mardi Gras, you know, like that.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

What's your top food recommendation for New Orleans? I know many people know the Commander's Palace. Is there any other great wrecks?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I love Commander's Palace. I also really love Galatoise, which is an old French restaurant with traditionally French food that's on Bourbon Street.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Great. So what was the first job you ever had?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I was a lifeguard at the Jewish Community Center.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Oh, very cool. I was a popcorn concessionist at the movie theater. So when you were a kid, what did you think you would be?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I wasn't sure. I really loved to read and I loved to teach. I did a lot of playing school in my very early childhood, so I thought I would teach. I didn't rule out law. My mother had been a teacher before she stayed home. She was a teacher in the days when you had to quit as soon as she became pregnant. So she taught in a public school and then stayed home to raise us after she started having children. My father was a lawyer, so both of those were on my radar screen. But I was really interested more in teaching.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Got it. So when did you actually transition to going into the law or being interested in the law?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

You know, like I said, it was always a possibility. I always thought about it as a possibility, but I really made the decision my senior year of college. When I had to get down to it and decide whether to go to grad school in English or go to law school. I did pro con lists. I took the gre. I took the lsat. I can remember sitting in my dorm room trying to make the call, and chose law.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

So if you didn't choose law, do you think you'd end up as an English professor, or what do you think would have been?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I probably would have. I mean, I don't know. Let's see. I think I would have gone to English grad school. I don't know whether I would have decided to be in the academy or whether I would have decided, hey, I want to go teach high school anyway. I'm not sure.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Great. Then you went off to Rhodes College and then to Notre Dame Law School, and I assume you did really well. There was. I confess, I didn't really love law school. I thought, you know, I love the intellectual exploration and the Friendships you made. But I didn't enjoy the experience. What about you?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I loved it.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Oh, really?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I did. I mean, I didn't like the stress. Yes. You know, especially in the beginning and not getting grades and not knowing how you're doing until the end of the first semester. But I did actually really love it.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Right. And where. Where do you fall on the perennial question of whether students, young students today should go to law school?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Well, I've had to give my own daughter this advice. My oldest daughter was thinking of law school, and she decided to take a job and work for two years and reevaluate. And I thought that was a good idea because I don't think you should make the investment of opportunity, cost, tuition cost, or time unless you know that it's something that you want to do. So I'm not down on going to law school. I love law school. I think lawyers can have great careers, and there are a lot of things you can do with a law degree. But I don't think you should just do it default. It's something to do. I don't know what else I want to do.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Fair enough. You then clerked for two of the most prominent judges in the country. Justice Silverman on the D.C. circuit, then Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. Sorry, Judge silverman on the D.C. circuit. You wrote about your relationship with them so tenderly in the book, which I really enjoyed, almost as if they were fatherly figures. Do you want to talk about that? And what's one thing you learn from each judge on how to be a good judge?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So Judge Silberman was great at relationships, and it was very touching to me. After he passed away. I think it's been two years now after he passed away. Harry Edwards, with whom he served on the court and a number of different settings at various memorials, gave Judge Silberman the tribute of having really brought the court together at a time that was contentious. They were having a lot of en bancs, and he kind of stepped back from that in the interests of collegiality. And I think that was a great gift of his. He was good at relationships with law clerks. He was good at relationships with his colleagues. Also an excellent judge. So I don't mean to say I didn't learn anything about judging from him, but I really was impressed by watching the way in which, you know, he was friends with people who he disagreed with or he might regularly be on the other side in opinions. Both Merrick Garland and Dick Cheney spoke at his funeral.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Oh, that's impressive. What about Justice Scalia.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Justice Scalia was huge personality. I learned a lot about analysis, a lot about writing, a lot about how to be quick witted and articulate because you had to know everything about every case. And if he called on you, so to speak, you had to be able to make arguments about your co clerk's cases. So you kind of always had to be on your toes. So I would say. And discipline. The discipline of following the law where it leads.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah. What were your favorite DC Haunts back when you were clerking? Like restaurants, bars?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

You're assuming I went out to restaurants. I would say I spent a lot of time at AV Ristorante because both Judge Silverman and Justice Scalia really liked it.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Got it. Great. So after clerky, you went on to a law firm and I didn't know this then you went on to work on the bushby Gore litigation. You even ended up in Florida. How did that happen and how was that experience?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So I was an associate. I started out my career at Miller Cassidy, which then merged with Baker Bots, which is a Texas based firm. And James Baker is at that firm and he was hired by the Bush campaign. So many of the associates in the D.C. office were dispatched down to Florida. So there were a lot of. There was a lot of litigation going on at the time. I didn't work on. I wasn't working in the Florida Supreme Court case.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Got it.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

But yeah, it was very interesting for.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

A young lawyer, I'm sure. And then obviously the Supreme Court weighed in. How did you feel about how the Supreme Court handled that case?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Oh, let's see. Judge Bhumate. Pushing.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

I warned her I would push a little. I'm sorry.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

No, that's okay. I mean, you know, I can't, as you'd say at a confirmation hearing, I can't.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Okay, fair enough. Fair enough. You then turn to academia. Why'd you do that?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Well, you know, I wanted to teach. I had always wanted to teach. And I did a fellowship at GW for a year to do some writing and research and think about whether it was what I wanted to pursue and before I went on the market. Notre Dame found out that I was doing this fellowship and reached out and asked me to do a job talk before I went on the market. And I did. And I just thought, I mean, I really had loved being at Notre Dame, wanted to teach. And it was, it seemed like a dream job. It combined the two interests that I had. Law and teaching and writing.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Sure. So you wrote about stare decisis as a Professor In a 2005 article, you argued for a weaker form of stare decisis for lower courts, that lower courts should not adopt a strong presumption of stare decisis in statutory interpretation cases. That's music to my ears. But can you tell us briefly why?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Sure. So the stardecis, as I used to tell my law clerks, kind of comes in like tall grande venti. And it's weakest in constitutional cases. It's medium strength in regular cases. So like common law cases or admiralty things that the court doesn't decide very often. And then it's super strong in cases of statutory interpretation. And these different strengths of stare decisis developed at the Supreme Court level, and then courts of appeals have kind of followed suit. And that is true with respect to statutory stare decisis, too. But the rationale that the court has offered for statutory stare decisis is that Congress is on notice of the statutory interpretation. And then it should be up to Congress to shift gears if Congress doesn't like the interpretation. I think that whatever one thinks of that presumption in the Supreme Court, I think the idea that Congress is tracking what happens all around the country in statutory interpretation cases, that it just is something that doesn't translate well to the courts of appeals.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Right. Now, jumping ahead, that article was written over a decade before you actually became a judge. Did your opinion change at all when you got on the court?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

You mean on the 7th Circuit?

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yes.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Let's see. When you're a law professor, you get to write about the law as you think it should be. But when you're a court of appeals judge or a Supreme Court judge, then you have to take the law as it is. And so I didn't argue that the 7th Circuit change its practices. The 7th Circuit actually has a great process. I don't know if you have it on the 9th. We can do an internal circulation if a panel wants to overrule precedent or if it has been superseded by current events. And so there's not the pressure to have to go en banc every time. And I think that makes things work much better.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Right? Yeah. If we want to do that, we have to go through the whole rigmarole, and it's a lot of use of resources. So has your view on any legal doctrine changed over time?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Let's see. So surely it would be true that. And one would hope that it would be the case that one changes one's ideas as one is exposed to other arguments. I don't think that fundamentally my approach to the law and to questions of Interpretation has changed.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Got it. So it's very clear we were very happy as a professor in South Bend. Some of your former students report that you were frequent tailgater. Is that true?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

That is true. Yeah. We had an antique green fire truck. It was a 1929 fire truck that we and some other families had. We had it painted green for the Irish. And, yeah, we did a lot of tailgating.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Great. And you mentioned in your book that you had to burn the boats when you left South Bend. What are the smaller things that you had to leave behind that you missed? Like, is there a coffee shop or restaurant or bookshop?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

The thing that I miss most, honestly, is the gym that we went to. That's pretty good. We went to a CrossFit gym, and it was, you know, the trainer was great. It was the same people. I liked the competition of it, and now I just kind of have to work out at home and I went to the gym.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Oh, yeah. That's probably tougher. How long have you been doing CrossFit?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Well, I don't really do it anymore. I mean, I kind of do my own modified thing in my basement. I did it. It is actually the thing I miss the most. And I'm in much worse shape now that I'm a Jetson.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Fair enough. Fair enough.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I was a lot fuzzer.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Okay. And in 2017, you were nominated to be a judge on the 7th Circuit. Everyone knows that during confirmation hearing, Senator Feinstein said that the dogma lives loudly within you. I'm always curious, what did you think about that statement? Did you take it as a badge of honor or as an insult?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Let's see. As you know, having been through a confirmation hearing, you're kind of like a deer in the headlights the whole time, and things are happening, and you're just trying to make sure you fought through with the answer to the next question. Question's going to be. So I was surprised by it, and I was surprised, and I would say it was a little. It was unexpected and a little uncomfortable to have my faith be kind of in the spotlight after that hearing. But, I mean, you know, it is what it is, and it's a big part of my life. So, you know, I'm not ashamed of it.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Fair enough. So it's. It's almost exactly five years ago, I think, tomorrow, that President Trump announced your. Your nomination to the Supreme Court. Can you tell us, like, what were the highlights and the lowlights of that, the Supreme Court confirmation?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Well, I would say that it's pretty much all a lowlight Fair enough. There's a song, one of my daughters who was in college at the time, made me a playlist to listen to in the mornings as I was getting ready before I went to hearings. And one of the songs on it was this old Rodney Atkins song. If you're going through hell, keep on going.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Nice.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

And that's kind of what the confirmation process is like.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Nice, nice. You know, it's funny, I think in another interview, you talked about the booting process for the Supreme Court and how you had to be prepared for protesters.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Yeah.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Did you want to tell.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Oh, yeah, sure. So, you know, you have to be ready for anything. So it was during COVID so I didn't get to do a lot of big moots. But even in a smaller one, one of the. The things you had to practice is you're just sitting there and all of a sudden somebody would burst into the room and start yelling. Because you had to be prepared, if that happened at a hearing, to not lose your train of thought and to be able to continue to go.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah. So little known fact. That was my role. Protester number one for Justice Gorsuch. During his mood, while he was mooting, I was sitting behind him and I started screaming, gore sucks. Gore sucks.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Did you come up with that?

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah, I thought it was. I didn't make signs. So anyway.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Okay, now let's turn to life on the bench. You write about the symbolism of a judge wearing a black robe in your book. I didn't realize that the practice was actually started by John Marshall. Why is that important that it was.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Started by John Marshall or the black robe? So John Marshall started the practice as a sign of judicial humility because he was establishing the Supreme Court as trying to gain respect as an independent and co. Equal branch. And before the black robe, judges wore robes that were colored often at the universities they had attended. He thought wearing a simple black robe showed that judges were not putting themselves above others or above the political branches or acting like aristocrats. I think that it's true that the robe still today is a sign of judicial humility. But I also think that dressing in black we all wear the identical color shows that we are all united in the business of the impartial interpretation of the law and application of the law. And so that sameness and that color, I think, is a symbol also of the judicial rule.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Great.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

At Capella University, learning online doesn't mean learning alone. You'll get support from people who care about your success, like your enrollment specialist who gets to know you and the goals you'd like to achieve. You'll also get a designated academic coach.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Who'S with you throughout your entire program.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Plus, career coaches are available to help you navigate your professional goals. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at capella. Edu.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Well, I was down on my last dollar than I started saving because the bank said fiscal restraint is what you're craving. So I put my earnings in a high yield account, let the savings compound and the interest mount. I'm optimizing cash flow, putting debt in check. Now time. Time is my friend and not a pain in the neck and we've got a little cash to rebuild the old deck. Boring money moves make kind of lame songs, but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet. BNC bank brilliantly boring since 1865 recently we asked some people about sharing their New York Times accounts.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

My name is Dana. I am a subscriber to the New York Times, but my husband isn't and it would be really nice to be able to share a recipe or an article or compete with him in wordle or connections.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Thank you Dana. We heard you introducing the New York Times Family Subscription one subscription, up to four separate logins for anyone in your life. Find out [e-mail] family now how was it going from the ivory tower of academia to the court? Was there a big shift from going from an academic perspective to the judicial perspective?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So I think one of the differences between academia and being a judge is getting used to being on a multi member court. When you're an academic, you're writing for yourself. You get to explore and in fact you have to explore when you're presenting papers to colleagues. Every weakness in the argument you have to be heavily footnoted, but you really get to say whatever you want to say on a multi member court. On the seventh Circuit you're mostly sitting in panels of three, as in all courts of appeals. The Supreme Court you're writing for 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9. So you can't just say whatever you want to say. You have to find a path that you can have a majority for. And ideally, I mean I like to try to build consensus if you can find more. But you have to leave questions unanswered and that can be frustrating, I'm sure.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Now was there a big shift from going From Circuit Judge, 7th Circuit Judge to a justice? Aside from being in the public eye? Is there a difference in the role? Do you think so?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I think it feels very different to sit en banck in Every case, I think there's a. It feels very different. I'm kind of saying this a moment ago, sitting in a panel of three and always sitting in a panel of nine, that feels very different. The cert process is obviously an entirely different process, but I think really the dynamics of the multi member court is the biggest difference in the job.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Now, I understand you're still teaching Notre Dame. Do you teach other places as well?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I don't think I could fit a lot more teaching into the schedule than I do. And I've had daughters at Notre Dame the whole time that we've been here. So it's also, in addition to seeing my. Yeah. In addition to seeing my friends on the faculty, it's also time with my kids, so.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

And is that why you teach? To go back, or does it also help with judging, do you think?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

In the summertime, I usually teach in August during the first week of school. And in the summertime, I try to catch up on law review articles or scholarship that's been done in areas that are of importance to the court. And so there can be a synergy with my law students. I can assign and then we can discuss the articles that I was wanting to read anyway.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Fair enough. That's good. So it's a common criticism of the court that almost every justice on the court comes from the Ivy League. You're currently the only justice on the court not from Harvard or Yale. Does that make a difference? Is there some importance to having educational diversity on our courts?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So I don't think that we need educational diversity just for its own sake. And I don't think that I decide cases differently from my colleagues because I went to a different law school, nor do I think it should be that way because, you know, I don't think that's. I guess I think the law is the law, as I'm sure you agree. I do think, however, that just for the sake of widening our lens, I mean, I've had law students. One of my very excellent law students went to GW in part because her husband was in D.C. and he was working and she didn't have the geographic flexibility. I mean, I went to Notre Dame. I had a full scholarship. Many students choose schools for reasons other than just saying, I want to go to Harvard or Yale because this is, you know, I want to be on the Supreme Court someday or want to do X or. Yeah, I have found there's talent everywhere. And I think it's a little bit elitist to think that it can only be found at Harvard and Yale.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Good. And since you've been on the court, you've weathered a fair amount of criticism from both the left and the right. First off, are you on Twitter or any other social media where you see this criticism?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

No.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

No. Okay, good. And how do you.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

But I take it you've read some of the.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

I'm on. Yeah. So the criticism you do hear about, how do you deal with that?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

You know, I think. And this is a difference between the 7th Circuit and the Supreme Court, and that goes hand in hand with being on a more visible court and being a public figure, I've had to just learn to tune it out. And when I do know about the criticism, and sometimes it takes the form. I mean, I know there are protests outside of my house or when we've had pizzas delivered and that sort of a thing. You just have to tune it out. Because it's the job of a judge not to. That's why we have life tenure. Right. It's the job of a judge to ignore that and not be influenced by public opinion. John Marshall was burned in effigy for some of the rulings he made during the trial of Aaron Burr. I mean, so criticizing the judiciary is as old as the institution itself.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Fair enough. Now, you've been on the court for almost five years. Do you feel like you've come into your own as a justice?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Come into my own. Like, able to find my way.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Well, you get all your sea legs. For me, it took about three to four years before I think I understood the job and how to do it.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Well, yeah, I'm sure judging is the kind of thing you're always learning. Right. I mean, we do have internal practices and procedures that, you know, it takes time to become comfortable with or just to kind of know off the top of your head. But, yeah, no, I feel very comfortable.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Okay, great. So now let's turn to some substantive questions. Since, you know, as you mentioned, wrote judges, and I know you can't say much beyond what you've written in your opinions. I'll try a little, but we'll see. So it's well known that you subscribe to the judicial philosophy known as originalism. Would you describe the philosophy as you see it, and how did you arrive at that view?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So originalism is the approach to the law which says that the original public meaning of the text at the time of its ratification, as it would have been understood by an informed observer, is determinative when it's discernible. And I say in the book that I think one misconception of originalism is that it's like Google Translate or ChatGPT and you just put it in and then the history yields a clear result. And that that's why you should be an originalist, because then you always get clear answers. And I don't think that's true. Any kind of interpretation is complicated. Originalism is complicated. If you take a more pragmatic or progressive approach to constitutional interpretation, that's hard. And the answers are not clear there either. But in my view, the ratified text is the law. People enact law as they understand that law to be and as it will govern the governed. I am an originalist because I think it's the right way to think about the law.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Anyone growing up in the conservative legal movement would recognize that judicial restraint was often considered the highest value for judges. While today some see judicial restraint as contrary to what originalism dictates. First, did you consider yourself as part of the conservative legal movement before you became a judge?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I'm sorry.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

And then if not. And second, what role should judicial restraint play in interpreting the Constitution?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So I would say that judicial restraint in some respects. In the 1980s, when originalism was coming to prominence as a self conscious theory of interpretation, judicial restraint was often identified as the raison d' etre because originalism in some respects was a reaction against some Warren court opinions which were perceived as being very activist. And so restraint was one of the values that early originalists prized. I don't think that judicial restraint is the raison d' etre for originalism. I think the reason to be an originalist, and I think that as a matter of academics, I think academics would subscribe to this view more, is because it is the law. My view of it would be come from a place of popular sovereignty where I would say this is the enacted law and so where we can discern the meaning, we must follow it. Now, do I think that aside benefit can be restraint? Yes, because I do think that the exercise and the discipline of trying to focus on what the text means does is a metric by which I have to be restrained. So I think that judicial restraint is often a side benefit. But I don't think it's the reason for originalism. Nor do I think, I mean, it depends on how you define restraint. I think that judicial activism is thrown around a lot. And it's usually thrown around. It's never a good thing. It's usually thrown around as a criticism of whatever decision is viewed as activist. I think if we just talk in terms of when the exercise of Judicial review yields the conclusion that a particular statute or executive action is unconstitutional. I mean, I think originalism, and I think this should be true of any theory of constitutional interpretation, would say, well, the Constitution is the super majority law. It trumps. And so if that's what the Constitution requires, that's what the Constitution requires. And it's not activist to say, as Marbury vs Madison does, and following the Constitution, not the unconstitutional act.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Well, in the Second Amendment context, the Court has described the text, history and tradition approach. How do you see that in respect to originalism? Is it a different iteration of originalism, the latest innovation of originalism, or is it something different completely?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So I think people talk about history and tradition for a lot of different reasons. And I think it can have a role in originalism. And then I think there's an aspect of it which is not originalist. And I tried to say this a little bit in my Rahimi concurrence. Yes, I think in the Bruin context, it is originalist insofar as what Heller said is that the right to bear arms was a preexisting right that the Second Amendment essentially codified. And so I think when the Court is looking at history and tradition in that context, like what was the understanding of the right in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, that is an originalist endeavor. It's trying to figure out, well, what was the original understanding of this rite? What did this rite entail? Now, I think there's another use of history and tradition, and I think this is what I was getting at in Vidal vs Elster, and I wrote separately in that case, which is not looking at tradition or history for purposes of discerning the original meaning of the text, but for something different, because tradition and history is considered long after the time of the text's ratification. So that's not originalism that would justify consulting history or tradition to that end. It's something else. And so that something else must have a rationale. And I mean, it could be James Madison talked about the process of liquidation, which is pretty specific for him, that was the constitutionality of the bank of the United States, where there's been an open constitutional debate engaged in by political branches, and the judiciary can participate in it too, over time, and then something becomes settled, or it can be persuasive. I think that in cfpb, I think a long pattern and continuous pattern of the political branches acting in a certain way can be persuasive. But I think to treat history and tradition that extends beyond the Ratification period as determinative requires some kind of rationale.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Fair enough. And then you talk about history, tradition. I think some people have questioned is there a difference between the two or did they mean something different to you or are they talking about the same thing?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I'm not actually clear what the. I didn't come up with the history of tradition.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

I don't know.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I mean, look, there are some areas in which it's doctrinally required. That's true of substantive due process, Right. So substantive due process, it probably comes from that line of jurisprudence because substantive due process talks about the history and traditions of the American people, right?

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah. I always think of it as it's text and historical understanding, whatever that is. And you mentioned Rahimi. I really enjoyed that concurrence. And you showed that courts should not at too high a level of generality in seeking for historical analogs. Do you have any tips on how to determine when you're looking at too high level of generality?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I think that is one of the difficult questions, not just in the Second Amendment context. I think that's true throughout the Constitution. That's true when you're looking at the equal protection clause. I think that is why Jack Balkan's form of originalism is quite different than Antonin Scalia's level of originalism, because Jack Balkan, the Yale law professor, would interpret it skyscraper originalism at a very high level of generality and a lower level of generality. So I don't think there's an easy answer because I think it's kind of a clause by clause, scenario by scenario. But I think there's also a real danger, I said this in the Rahimi context of interpreting it too low a level of generality.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Fair enough. And do you think legal education needs to change at all to adopt to the prominence of originalism for students to better understand originalism, to be better advocates for originalism before originalist judges or how to conduct originalist research.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Let's see. So I can't. My experience of an academic is being at Notre Dame. And so I don't know. I wouldn't feel like I'm in a position to opine broadly on whether the legal academy should change its approach. But I will say that it always benefits. I taught statutory interpretation and constitutional law for many years, and I always. My goal was never to tell my students what to think, but always to equip them with the best answers on both sides. And when I taught statutory interpretation, for example, I did it in a seminar and some students would become convinced very early on that they were textless, that they hated legislative history. They needed to know the best arguments on the other side and be challenged the whole time. And then at the end of the semester, I would always say, and whatever you think about legislative history, you're going to be a lawyer, and if it favors your client, you better know how to cite it. You're not going into advocacy with your set of principles. You need to know how to make the best legal arguments that are accepted. And so I would say the same would be true, I think, of all areas of law. The point of legal education is to teach students how to argue both sides of an issue.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

I loved your concurrence in Biden vs. Nebraska, where you laid out the case that the major questions doctrine is a linguistic canon rather than a substantive constitutional canon. Can you briefly describe what that doctrine is for the audience and you can explain why the difference between a linguistic canon and the substantive canon is an important issue.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So a substantive canon is one that does not aim necessarily to interpret the law in its most ordinary and natural sense. Which would be the central principle of textualism would be to say we interpret this language as an ordinary. My colleague, Judge Frank easterbrook on the 7th Circuit would say the ring the language would have had to a skilled user of language at the time. A substantive canon is a interpretive principle that is willing to adopt a less natural but still plausible interpretation of the language to the service of some substantive end. So the avoidance canon, which interprets a statute, if at all possible, to avoid a constitutional problem, is an example of that. That might not be the best interpretation of the language, just taking it straight up. But the Court adopts a less plausible but still possible interpretation to serve that policy end, grounded in the Constitution of avoiding a constitutional decision. If one doesn't absolutely have to be made for the major questions doctrine, that's the principle that a statute will not be. Let's simplify this. Construed to confer a major power upon the executive branch or upon the President unless it clearly says so. There's a divide among people who think that that's a substantive canon that enforces the non delegation doctrine, which is the principle that Congress cannot delegate away its lawmaking authority, that Congress can give the executive branch discretion but must always legislate for itself. I argued in Biden versus Nebraska and I wrote it because Justice Kagan in her dissent in that case made what I thought was a point that was one that needed to be answered, which was that the major questions doctrine can function as a get out of business text free card. I don't think that's the case. I think the court has to be very careful about adopting substantive canons. I wrote about this in my prior law professor life. We've had substantive canons since the courts have been in business, Lenity, avoidance, et cetera. So it's not that I think substantive canons are illegitimate, but they have a policy making element. And so I think the court ought to be very careful about doing something that justifies a departure from the best meaning of the text. So in Biden versus Nebraska, I said that I thought the major questions doctrine, to me, actually facilitated identifying the ordinary meaning of the text because it's a backdrop principle. So I use the example of because I am a parent, when you're trying to think of examples and hypotheticals, the things in my daily life are what occurred to me. I use the example of a babysitter staying with kids for the weekend, and the parent gives a credit card and says, make sure the kids have fun. We would think that that would apply to the movies or pizza, not to some big, expensive amusement park trip or an out of town trip or that sort of thing, because we understand in context that there are kind of rails or barriers just because we understand how we use language.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Absolutely. So in your book, you talk about that. You're sparing in your writing of separate opinions. So I was somewhat surprised to see your concurrence in Scurmeti in that case. The majority which you joined said that the state law addressing transgender youth didn't violate the equal protection clause because it didn't classify on the basis of transgender status. But you wrote a separate concurrence to say that even if it did, you didn't think that transgender class is a suspect classification. What was the thought process in writing that concurrence?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Yeah, so I don't write a lot of concurrences because generally I think it's best to let the court's opinion speak for itself. And scrametti, you know that that question about suspect class was briefed in the case, and it's one that is percolating a lot in the lower courts. There have been a lot of decisions about it, and I thought that it should be addressed. And I also, you know, I had a theory of how to think about suspect classes and the court's jurisprudence about that, and I thought it was worthwhile to put out there so that we didn't have a lot of briefing. I mean, I thought my approach to suspect classes, we didn't have a lot of briefing on the question of whether there had been laws that functioned over time in ways that were discriminatory against transgender individuals in the same way that we did for race or for gender. So anyway, I thought it was helpful to have that out there so that that issue could be briefed.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah, I always said this. I always love concurrences from the justices showing us, you know, those lower court judges how to think about these issues that come up to us, even though the Supreme Court hasn't decided it. So that I thought was very helpful. So you wrote Casa versus Trump this past term, while the merits were about birthright citizensh opinion dealt only with the question of universal injunctions. It was arguably the biggest case of the term, I think. And I have to say it was beautifully written. I confess I was a little depressed when I read it because I just don't think I could ever write an opinion so well. It's true. It was succinct, clear, and it just, I thought it really marched through Judge Bumate.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I know I'm laying on that flattery. The next time I review an opinion by Judge Bumate, I'll have to recuse.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Anyway. So I have three questions for you. One, you're still a relatively junior justice. Why do you think you were given this important writing assignment? Two, does it frustrate you that the opinion is often mischaracterized as weighing in on the merits or supporting the Trump administration's view? And three, what tips would you give on how to be a better writer?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

One, I don't know. You'd have to ask the chief. Two, yes, it's very frustrating that people think it's about birthright citizenship rather than the universal injunction. And three, you know, when I write maybe this is just my professor streak, I want it to be understandable. It's not always possible to make it understandable to a non lawyer, but I try to make the argument as streamlined as possible because I think the more kind of cul de sacs that you go down, the harder it is to follow the straight line of an argument.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah, that was perfect. So if you listen to advisory opinion, Sarah Isker often talks about how there are two axises for characterizing judges. First is the well known left right access, conservative liberal access. The other access, which might be more important is the institutionalist non institutionalist access. As I see it, it's about how willing a judge is to rock the boat or shake up existing court institutions. First of all, do you think that's a good way to characterize judges. And where do you place yourself on that axis?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Hmm. So I don't think I can completely understand why excellent commentators like Sarah Isger come up with these axes and different labels. But judges, I don't think of myself that way. And I think it's not a great idea for judges to think of themselves as falling in a particular camp or label. I mean, unlike politicians which self identify and identify themselves and then caucus with one another. I mean, I don't caucus. I don't say I am an institutionalist and I would now like to caucus with the institutionalists. I will say that my general approach, as reflected by what I just said about when I write concurrences and generally letting the court speak for itself, I think the institution matters. And I think that's the entire enterprise of having to write from multi member court. You're not writing just for yourself, like when you're a district judge or a law professor. You are writing for a multi member court. And so I do have in mind, and I do value the court as an institution and think we have to speak in an institutional voice and be protective of the institution. But I think my other eight colleagues would agree.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

So since you said you hated labels, you're going to hate this next question. But for a long time, Justice Kennedy was considered the most powerful justice because he was the swing justice. Some people say that you have become the swing justice. Do you agree with that?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So again, like I'll stand on what I said before about labels. I also think a swing justice that makes it sound like you sort of are swinging back and forth and you can't make up your mind. And that is not how my approach to judging. I mean, my approach to judging is to not focus on it. It's not like I'm thinking about an outcome and then trying to figure out a way to get there. I'm just kind of playing it straight. And I have a philosophy and people might agree or disagree with either the philosophy or the result that I reach, implying that philosophy in an individual case. But I don't think of myself as a swing justice.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Right. According to the SCOTUS blog stat pack from the last term, it says that you agree with Justice KAVANAUGH the most 91% of the time and agreed with Justice Jackson the least at 68% of the time. Do you have any thoughts on what you attribute that to?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Well, I think 68% of the time is still more frequently than infrequently, and I think it's important not to lose sight of that. So it's almost 70% of the time I'm agreeing with Justice Jackson. I think that Justice Jackson and I haven't studied the cases in which we disagreed. But just thinking about it, Justice Jackson and I come from different jurisprudential starting points. She is not an originalist, for an example. And so I think when you start in different places as an initial matter, then you naturally will arrive at different results. Whereas Justice Kavanaugh and I do both identify as originalist and textualist, so our starting place will be similar.

[Podcast Host / Narrator]

Going online without Express VPN is like walking your dog in public without a leash. Most of the time you'll probably be fine. But what if one day your dog wanders a bit too far and gets dog napped by someone? Whenever you connect to an unencrypted network, like in cafes, hotels, or airports, your online activity isn't protected. ExpressVPN protects you by creating a secure, encrypted tunnel between your device and the Internet, keeping hackers and snoops out. So why is ExpressVPN the best VPN? First, it's incredibly secure. The encryption is so strong that even with a supercomputer, it would take over a billion years to break through, meaning your data stays safe from hackers. Second, it's simple to use. Just open the app, hit one button, and you're instantly protected. No complicated setup. No tech expertise required. If I needed this product, it's what I would use. Secure your online data today by visiting expressvpn.com advisory that's E X P-R-E-S-S V P N.com advisory to find out how you can get up to four extra months. Free expressvpn.com advisory right now at the.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Home Depot shop fall savings and get up to 40% off select appliances like Frigidaire. Get ready for a season of hosting with the Frigidaire Stone Bake Pizza Oven, the only oven that reaches 750 degrees for restaurant quality pizza in as little as two minutes. Start making hosting easier with fall appliance savings today at the Home Depot only when using Stone Bake Pizza Mode offer Vallocto's second through October 22nd US only C store online for details so you said you wrote the book to make the Court more accessible and understandable to the public. What's the one misunderstanding about the Supreme Court you'd like to clear up?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I think that the Supreme Court functions like the political branches that were like Congress or the President. I want people to understand, agree or disagree with the decisions that the court reaches, that we are engaged in a legal enterprise. And on the one hand, we're the most transparent branch because when we issue decisions, we do our own work. When we go into a conference room, it's only the nine of us discussing the cases and we issue decisions that make plain our reasons. But on the other hand, because there's no C span in my chambers, we don't have the same transparency of decision making process that the other branches do. And so I wanted people to see I devote a chapter to describing how I go about making decisions because I want people to appreciate in ways that you can't appreciate just from a hit and a news article that this is the result of legal analysis and not just kind of knee jerk policy preferences as you see in our friends across the street.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

In your book, you talk about how the Supreme Court only likes to take cases after they percolate in lower courts and the court is looking for perfect vehicles to take the case. I always wonder, why does the court need to take a perfect vehicle? After all, aren't you deciding legal questions? Not necessarily the case.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Nothing's perfect. So perfect vehicle would be unattainable. But you want to make sure occasionally. So last time we had a couple cases that were digged that were dismissed as improvidently granted. You don't want a grant to grant a case to decide a question on which the lower courts are divided, only to have the case come up and then be derailed because there was a jurisdictional problem or because the facts were very unique. And so in fact, deciding that case wasn't going to settle the issue for all of the courts around the country. So you want to try to get a representative case that doesn't have facts that are going to distort the analysis of the legal issue. And you want to make sure that there's nothing that's going to prevent you from actually reaching the legal issue.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Got it. So you recently recused in a case from Oklahoma, St. Isidore vs. Drummond. Some justices give reasons for recusals, some don't. I'm curious what goes into the decision to recuse and whether or not to explain it publicly.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So recently some justices have started to identify bases for recusal, although that's new. I mean, the court has not in history and tradition, the court has not. Justices have not offered reasons. And we didn't in the seventh Circuit either. I don't know of DU in the ninth.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

We don't.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Yeah. So it's an Unusual. It's a veering from practice to do that, judges will recuse their two basic categories. One is actual bias and the other is the appearance of bias. Bias. And actual bias is a very definitive list. I mean, if my husband were arguing the case, if I had a financial interest, no matter how small, those are just automatic triggers. You don't even think about it. I mean, if you had $1 of stock, you would have to recuse, even though you might say, well, obviously this isn't going to affect my decision of the case. Appearance of biases. Would a reasonable observer who is apprised of all of the facts consider that you couldn't fairly resolve the case? That's a tricky standard and that's a hard standard to apply. I would say that in thinking about whether to. And I'm speaking only for myself here, but in thinking about whether to identify reasons for recusal. If you identify reasons, you have to do it across the board. The biggest source of corruption, when we look at courts in other countries is financial. Our finances, as you have to too. We file these financial disclosure reports, these FDRs. My finances are out in the public and people can and do look at cases on the docket and compare them against our FDRs to see. So that's not a secret. If there are cases that have come up from the 7th Circuit and I've recused, it's very easily to check public dockets. You would assume that that's probably because of prior involvement in the case. Then there are a series of other reasons, including everything from, say, personal relationships to deeply held convictions that one can't put aside. And if you think about those cases, you know, what if you had. And you have to think about. Because if you start doing it, you will have to do it, like I said, across the board. What if you had some personal experience that led to great animosity and you felt like you just truly could not be unbiased because there was some extreme thing. Let's imagine I felt that way about you. Judgement Matei, to name that. Oh, no, no, no. I mean, to name. You wouldn't want to do that. Or even on the other way. I mean, you may have heard that there are. There are costs. My family members, it was publicly reported, we're getting pizzas delivered to them, et cetera. And people can be mad at me for decisions or lash out at me for the way I decide a case, whether it's by recusing the case or casting a vote that they think is wrong. But I have to Think too about, well, is it really something I want to do to identify if that's the reason to identify that person and then put that person in that position? So I just sort of feel like when you think about the full range of reasons across the board, I don't know what might arise in the future. So I think it's just better not to say.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Makes sense. There's a debate going on among circuit judges about the practice of writing dissentals. As you know, dissentals are dissents from the denial of rehearing en banc. Some judges hate the practice. They call them turbocharged cert petitions. Other judges use them prolifically. They think that their job is. It's absolutely part of the job to flag when a circuit court has gotten a case. Case egregiously wrong. I'll confess, I've written probably over 20 dissentals in my five years in the court. So you know where I stand. Where do you stand?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Let's see. I think dissentals can be helpful in the cert pool. The law clerks review the petitions for certiorari. So I think having dissentals helps the law clerks, especially if a dissental flags, that there's a circuit split here, et cetera. I think they can be helpful. I think it's a different question what they do to collegiality on the court of appeals. So I would say from the Supreme Court's point of view, more information is always helpful from the court of appeals point of view. I don't know how to weigh in on that. I would think that would be the other factor in deciding whether to write.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

That makes sense. Now, many people say that AI is going to disrupt the legal and profession. First off, do you use AI at all in your work, and do you let your clerks use AI?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

You know what is so interesting? I've been doing a lot of events for the. For this book rollout, and that question has come up a lot. And it has literally never occurred to me or come up in chambers for us to use AI in respect. Yeah. And nor. Nor could we just because of security protocols at the court. I mean, all the large language models upload, and then. And then it's not secure. I mean, do my clerks. I feel like my clerks who are here today, you know, last year I had one clerk in particular. Nobody Googles anything. It's always, you know, where do we want to go for lunch? You know, some question. It's always asking chatgpt, how do you pronounce this? But we don't use it substantively. And the confidentiality concerns would make it the one.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

The one feature that I like is, I think it's called Google Notebook. It turns law review articles into podcasts so you can listen to them at the gym or something like that.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So that actually intrigues me. I didn't know about that. Yeah, I didn't know about that. I've tried Speechify, but then you have to listen. Speechify is a big pain for briefs because then you have to listen to all the psychiatry.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

No, this is a great. Because it actually sounds like two people talking about the case, like including with the ums and you know.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

You know what? I'll be trying.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah, there we go. So if we can. Can we turn to the lightning round section of this?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Sure.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Okay. So can you give one word answers to the following questions?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Okay.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Describe the following circuit courts. The Ninth Circuit, Judge Bhumite. I like that. The Fifth Circuit, New Orleans home D.C. circuit, administrative law, and your home circuit Seventh Circuit.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Favorite?

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Ah, good answer. Your favorite amendment.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Oh, gosh. A justice probably shouldn't isolate a favorite one. I love them all, but of course the 19th is particularly meaningful to me. But I love the Cole Constitution.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah. Favorite all time Supreme Court opinion.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Oh gosh, that is difficult to answer on the fly. I feel like Marbury is a safe one.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah. Okay, that's it. What about dissent? Are you favorite all time Supreme Court dissent?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I guess I'd probably say. And I mean I hate to say all time because then that's a lot of pressure to say it wasn't anything else. But one of my favorite dissents would have to be justice scalias and Morrison vs. Olson because of this wolf comes at a wolf. I mean, what a great line.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Beautiful. Yeah, I would have chose that too. What's their favorite opinion, concurrence or dissent you've written?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

I don't know. Maybe Biden versus Nebraska was fun to write.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Okay, so we have three minutes. I think so. So in your book you describe walking the halls of the Supreme Court with the music of your youngest son in your head. Specifically the soundtrack to Encanto and the Cha Cha slide. Those are solid choices. I think as a parent of twin six year old girls, I have the same affliction. So what's the latest song stuck in your head? For me it's the music from K Pop Demon Hunters.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Okay. Since you said that, I guess I can trust you to have a no judgment for.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Oh yeah.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Okay. So my husband has taken to waking up one of our teenage sons by blaring Ozzy Osbourne's. Crazy Train.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Nice. Nice. So aside from what other. You know, your kids, Nick, you listen to what. What's on. What type of music do you like to listen to? What's on your Spotify Wrapped, as the kids say.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Oh, gosh, my Spotify Wrapped is hilarious because it has music that all of my children play. Because if we're making dinner, they all pick up my phone and then attach it. So it's got everything from encanto to Crazy Train to choral music that I might listen to when I'm writing, you know, and then probably like all people of my age, I'm stuck in the 90s.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yep.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

In the early 2000s.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

I'm with you. Do you listen to any podcast?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

No comment.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Oh, interesting. Okay. Any good book recommendations?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

So I am currently listening to the Lincoln highway by Amber Tools and I really like that. I just finished the Woman who Smashed Codes about the first cryptographer and that was really interesting.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Interesting. So I have to say, you lead an extraordinary life. One of the most important jobs in the country and the parent of seven children. What's your secret guilty pleasure? When you have time away from all that, how do you unwind? For me, my sneaky pleasure is horror movies. What's yours?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Oh, I guess Jesse and I. My husband's name is Jesse. We will do watching Netflix at night. At this point, we don't have a ton of time for guilty pleasures.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Yeah, fair enough. So, last question. As you know, food is a constant theme for my questions. What's your favorite restaurant in dc?

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Now, I am not going to say say. Because I want the ability. Yes. I want the ability to be anonymous.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Okay, fair enough. I think we are out of time.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Okay. Well, thank you, Judge Buite. Yes, thank you very much.

[Podcast Host / Narrator]

All right. That was super fun. I thought Judge Bumate did an incredible job moderating that. He was so prepared to talk to, you know, kind of his boss. And again, if you would like to watch the video from this or any of the other panels from The SCOTUS Blog, 2025 Summit. Sign up for the SCOTUS Today newsletter at SCOTUS Vlog.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

And Doug, here we have the Limu emu in its natural habitat helping people customize their car insurance and save hundreds with Liberty Mutual. Fascinating. It's accompanied by his natural ally, Doug. Limu is that guy with the binoculars watching us. Cut the camera. They see us. Only pay for what you [e-mail] Liberty, Liberty.

[Justice Amy Coney Barrett]

Liberty.

[Judge Patrick Bhumate]

Liberty Savings. Very underwritten by Liberty Mutual Insurance company and affiliates. Excludes Massachusetts.