On Monday, I wrote about Mike Fragoso’s protection of President Trump’s determination to nominate Justice Barrett. Fragoso has now printed a second installment, which defends Justice Barrett’s report on the Courtroom. Fragoso, to his credit score, acknowledges that Justice Barrett votes in a different way than Justice Thomas. He chalks Barrett’s completely different voting patterns to what he calls the Justice’s “apolitical proceduralism.” Fragoso has written what I believe are one of the best defenses of Barrett’s appointment and her report on the bench. Finally, I believe his essay backfires, and furthers my case.
First, we are able to begin with the deserves docket. Fragoso writes, “Most significantly, Barrett removed Roe v. Wade.” True sufficient, however there may be greater than meets the attention. The New York Instances reported that Barrett changed her vote to disclaim cert in Dobbs. That the case was granted was as a consequence of Justice Kavanaugh, and never Justice Barrett. Pulling again, each judicial conservative has understood for practically half a century that Roe needed to be overturned. Ought to we actually be celebrating a call like Dobbs that was so clearly proper? And in Moyle, an essential follow-up case to Dobbs, Justice Barrett was not with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.
Second, Fragoso praises Barrett’s report on the Seventh Circuit. “Her time on the Seventh Circuit demonstrated a report of readability and analytical rigor that adopted precedent and—the place acceptable—urged the courtroom to raised align its jurisprudence with the unique understanding of the Structure.” Fragoso doesn’t cite any instances right here. However one case price mentioning, that didn’t seem on Barrett’s SJC questionnaire, was St. Joan Antida High School Inc. v. Milwaukee Public School District. I described the case again in 2023:
However one case Barrett didn’t listing was St. Joan Antida High School Inc. v. Milwaukee Public School District. On this case, a Catholic highschool contended that the federal government’s bussing coverage handled non secular colleges unequally. Choose Barrett joined the bulk opinion, which discovered that the federal government could have had a “rational foundation” to impose extra necessities on the Catholic faculty. The panel didn’t rule outright for the District. Somewhat, the courtroom remanded the case to the decrease courtroom to find out extra info. Choose Diane Sykes, who was on the unique Trump shortlist, dissented. She wrote that “this discriminatory remedy can’t be justified,” even on the present report.
Barrett’s vote in St. Joan presaged her place in two pandemic-era instances involving the Harvest Rock Church and South Bay United Pentecostal Church. On the time, California prohibited singing in homes of worship. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch have been in a position to conclude that the report favored a ruling for the church. Justice Barrett, in addition to Justice Kavanaugh, urged that the singing ban could also be unconstitutional, however on the restricted report, she wouldn’t enjoin the coverage. Like in St. Joan, Justice Barrett favored hesitancy within the face of alleged non secular discrimination. Ditto for Fulton. What Will Baude describes as “look earlier than you leap” is Barrett’s constant degree of caution–a warning that Justices Thomas and Alito lack.
Fragoso repeatedly describes Catholic assist of Barrett, although this case didn’t get the eye it warranted.
Third, Fragoso defends Justice Barrett’s refusal to overrule Smith in Fulton:
To start, she is very clearly a textualist and an originalist. This has offered some issues for the appropriate, comparable to when she refused to overturn Employment Division v. Smith as a result of the proposed reduction was basically non-originalist.
In Fulton, Barrett wrote that she was not persuaded by Professor McConnell’s originalist analysis:
Whereas historical past looms massive on this debate, I discover the historic report extra silent than supportive on the query whether or not the founding technology understood the First Modification to require non secular exemptions from usually relevant legal guidelines in at the very least some circumstances.
Somewhat, she was motivated by arguments primarily based on “textual content and construction.”
For my part, the textual and structural arguments in opposition to Smith are extra compelling. As a matter of textual content and construction, it’s troublesome to see why the Free Train Clause—lone among the many First Modification freedoms—affords nothing greater than safety from discrimination.
Barrett’s Fulton opinion was not originalist. I believe Professor McConnell has made the case that Smith is fallacious as an originalist matter. Justice Barrett apparently disagrees. However she didn’t supply something near an originalist account of the Free Train Clause. She merely listed some random questions that basically did not matter a lot. And within the wake of Fulton, she has proven no real interest in the solutions to these questions. And if Fragoso is correct, ought to we imagine that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch favored a “basically non-originalist.” After all not. This argument does not maintain up.
Fourth, Fragoso celebrates Barrett’s concurrence in Biden v. Nebraska:
But it surely has additionally yielded some nice evaluation, like when she responded definitively to Justice Kagan’s infinite trolling in regards to the supposed non-textualism of the Main Questions Doctrine in a masterly concurrence in Biden v. Nebraska.
This protection backfires. Fragoso acknowledges that Barrett is acceding to Kagan’s trolling. It is true. Justice Kagan has had a palpable affect on Barrett, and has satisfied her on quite a few matters. That isn’t one thing that needs to be praised. However what Fragoso omits is extra essential. In Nebraska, Barrett rejects Justice Gorsuch’s conception of the key query doctrine from West Virginia v. EPA. The Gorsuch-version of the doctrine is premised as an avoidance doctrine with regard to the non-delegation doctrine. Gorsuch is correct! However Barrett disagrees Gorsuch (and the opposite conservatives) in a concurrence that solely teachers may love about interpretive canons.
Fifth, Fragoso turns to the emergency docket:
Within the wake of the promiscuous growth of the common injunction over the past decade, that is modified. Now instances do not have time to percolate. District judges resolve issues rapidly for the entire nation, normally in a hand-picked circuit prone to agree with them, thus forcing the Supreme Courtroom to step in rapidly and resolve the query on an imperfect report.
Barrett clearly thinks that is no method to run a railroad, though she hasn’t essentially stated it in so many phrases. One of many points with the emergency docket is that orders aren’t essentially justified publicly, so the primary proof we now have is her seeming reluctance to grant reduction on an emergency posture.
Justice Barrett’s greatest areas of disagreements with Justices Thomas and Alito come on the shadow docket. I documented greater than a dozen instances the place Barrett was reverse Alito and Thomas. Fragoso describes Barrett’s votes as a “seeming reluctance.” I believe it way more helpful to see how Justices Thomas and Alito describe their very own colleagues. From my Civitas Outlook column:
Since 2022, these criticisms have continued. In one other abortion case, Justice Alito wrote that Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett have “merely misplaced the desire to resolve the straightforward however emotional and extremely politicized query.” Alito added that his colleagues “do[] not need to deal with this case” and as a substitute “duck[].” Simply last month, the Courtroom declined to evaluation a faculty’s coverage that inspired college students to transition their gender with out parental consent. Justice Alito faulted Justices Gorsuch and Barrett for “succumbing to the temptation to . . . keep away from[] some notably contentious constitutional questions.”
I believe Justice Barrett has acceded to the relentless drumbeat in regards to the nefarious shadow docket. Defenders can chalk her votes as much as “warning” or “reluctance,” however the reality stays that she persistently denies reduction in instances that may by no means make their method to the deserves docket. If she coupled her parsimonious denials on the shadow docket with extra grants on the deserves docket, maybe Barrett’s conduct could be justified. However she merely denies throughout the board. It’s warning all the best way down.
Sixth, Fragoso defends Barrett’s vote within the USAID case:
TROs, in fact, are usually not appealable, however the authorities wanted some recourse as a result of it claimed it could not, in actual fact, adjust to the order—at the same time as a technical matter. John Roberts offered reduction within the type of an administrative keep, which he then lifted—due to Barrett’s vote—after the preposterous deadline handed.
This is not proper. The deadline handed, nevertheless it remained in impact. The Courtroom quietly ordered the district courtroom to carry a listening to, even after denying reduction. I nonetheless assume this was an advisory opinion. And it does not assist Fragoso’s case to lump in Barrett with the Chief Justice’s artistic various dispute decision. What does it say that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have been on the opposite facet? Have been they not principled originalists or textualists or no matter different label you want to use?
Seventh, Fragoso means that Justice Kavanaugh is the middle of the Courtroom, and never Justice Barrett:
Extra globally, some evidence suggests that it is really Kavanaugh who holds the fulcrum put up on the Courtroom. However in case you’ve spent the final couple weeks on X, you have heard that it is Barrett.
Fragoso cites a SCOTUSBlog article from Could 2021, a number of months into Barrett’s time period. That isn’t notably present proof. I believe Barrett began off extra conservative as Kavanaugh began off extra liberal. Over the previous few years, they’ve reversed locations. I made this level with regard to the shadow docket. And Adam Feldman brings the receipts on the deserves docket:
Within the 2020 and 2021 Phrases, Barrett’s voting sample positioned her firmly within the conservative bloc. The variations have been notably massive, notably in 2021, when her settlement with Justices Alito (-33), Roberts (-32), and Kavanaugh (-32) confirmed a powerful conservative lean. This means that in her early tenure, she was ideologically nearer to her conservative colleagues than to Kagan by a big margin.
Nonetheless, within the 2022 Time period, Barrett’s alignment appeared to shift barely. Whereas she remained nearer to conservatives total, the variations between her settlement with Kagan and the conservative justices narrowed. Notably, her distinction with Alito reached zero, indicating equal settlement with each him and Kagan. Equally, her alignment with Gorsuch (-2) and Thomas (-4) confirmed a extra average stance in comparison with the earlier phrases.
By the 2023 Time period, Barrett’s ideological place remained conservative however confirmed additional moderation. The variations with Thomas and Alito (-12 every) and Gorsuch (-8) have been smaller in comparison with earlier years. Nonetheless, her hole with Kavanaugh (-21) remained extra substantial, suggesting that whereas she continued to vote with conservatives, her alignment was not uniform throughout all instances.
These developments counsel that whereas Barrett persistently leans conservative, her degree of settlement along with her colleagues fluctuates over time, and in sure instances, she seems to take a extra average stance.
Seventh, Fragoso acknowledges that Barrett has, from time to time, voted with the Courtroom’s three liberals in 5-4 instances:
To see how Barrett aligns with the liberal justices in shut instances I tracked the variety of occasions Barrett has voted on the identical facet as at the very least two of the liberal justices in 5-4 selections since she joined the Courtroom. It occurred as soon as up to now this time period in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA the place Barrett dissented together with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson. In one other environmental case, Ohio v. EPA from OT 2023, the justices’ voting alignment was the identical.
This occurred in 5 different instances making six of the 30 complete 5-4 selections between OT 2020 and OT 2023 or 20% of the time. The opposite instances have been Bittner v. US, Nationwide Pork Producers v. Ross, Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, Becerra v. Empire Well being, and Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Academics’ Retirement System making for one case in 2020, two in 2021, two in 2022, and one in 2023 displaying no nice improve over her time on the Courtroom.
I do have to deal with one uncommon statistic. Jed Rubenfeld on the Free Press wrote “In not a single 5–4 case from 2022–2024 did Barrett be part of the three liberal justices to assist type a majority.” That could be a very gerrymandered assertion. Rubenfeld excluded Barrett’s instances in 2020, 2021, and 2025, three of her six years on the Courtroom. In 2021, Justice Barrett wrote the dissent with the three liberals in HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association. In 2023, Barrett dissented with the three liberals in Ohio v. EPA. In 2025, Barrett dissented with the three liberals in San Francisco v. EPA. Plus there have been dying penalty instances and different shadow docket issues the place this 5-4 lineup appeared.
Eighth, Fragoso tells conservatives to cease complaining, and as a substitute discover methods to steer Justice Barrett:
The truth that there are six Republican appointees on the Supreme Courtroom does not relieve conservative litigants of the necessity to persuade 5 justices to agree with their place. . . . Effectively, assuming for the sake of argument that that is appropriate, then the conservative authorized motion wants to determine easy methods to litigate instances to Barrett, and people within the judicial-selection enterprise must take the truth of her fifth vote—and her life tenure—into consideration when selecting appellate judges.
The place have I heard this earlier than? From my put up on March 14:
Within the unhealthy previous days, Erwin Chemerinsky used to joke that if he may put Justice Kennedy’s picture on the entrance cowl of a quick, he would. However as I noticed two years in the past, briefs are actually being directed to Justice Barrett.
The Courtroom has shifted from interesting to the quirks of Justice Kennedy to the quirks of Justice Barrett. I believe that shift is inevitable each time there’s a single swing vote. The problem, nonetheless, is that no matter originalist or textualist tendencies Barrett could have, her warning pulls her again. If originalists cannot persuade her in Fulton, Brackeen, and different originalist instances, what hope is there?
Vidal v. Elster stays Barrett’s most important determination. When she grew to become satisfied that Justice Thomas was fallacious in regards to the unique which means of the First Modification, she reverted to a balancing take a look at that Justice Kagan gladly joined. Are originalist legal professionals supposed to simply faux it’s a victory to should make these form of pragmatic arguments the place Thomas is, however Barrett shouldn’t be, satisfied by originalism? That isn’t a lot of a victory.
I additionally do not perceive Fragoso’s level that we must always appoint extra appellate judges like Barrett. The primary rule of being in a gap is to cease digging. So put down your shovel. No extra Souters. No extra Robertses. No extra Barretts. There’s a very deep bench, and we are able to do a lot better.
Fragoso concludes:
Conservatives ought to cease complaining after they lose and go in regards to the enterprise of determining easy methods to win.
No. If we fail to debate our errors prior to now, we’re doomed to repeat them. Irrespective of how unpopular my writings could also be in some quarters–especially these sipping from “dogma” mugs–I’ll proceed shining a light-weight on every determination that comes out of the Supreme Courtroom. If my info are fallacious, inform me, I am going to appropriate them. However I believe the report is pretty stable at this level. And we can not ignore the criticism that Justices Thomas and Alito supply of their very own colleagues. We can not faux it doesn’t exist.
