Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett criticized the landmark Roe v. Wade decision as a judicial creation not rooted in the Constitution, framing it as a “free-floating” ruling that judges inserted into the Constitution rather than discovered there. Barrett made the comments during an interview on the program Bishop Barron Presents, explaining her reasoning for joining the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the 2022 decision that overturned Roe.
Barrett argued that Roe’s legal foundation was weak because the Constitution contains no explicit reference to abortion or medical procedures. She noted that defenders of Roe often point to the Due Process Clause’s protection of “liberty,” but cautioned that treating “liberty” as an “open vessel” into which judges can read virtually any right risks undermining democratic governance.
In the interview, Barrett emphasized a core originalist principle: the Constitution should be applied based on textual meaning and historical understanding, not judicial policy preferences. She said Roe effectively told Americans what they should agree to instead of reflecting what the Constitution’s text and history demonstrate they had already agreed to.
Barrett’s comments underscore a broader judicial philosophy that informed her decision in Dobbs, where the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and returned authority over abortion laws to the states. The Dobbs majority, which Barrett joined, concluded that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were wrongly decided and not grounded in constitutional text or history.
Her remarks also highlight ongoing debates within legal circles about constitutional interpretation. Originalists, like Barrett, argue for strict textual analysis and caution against expansive readings of broad constitutional phrases such as “liberty.” Critics of Roe from this perspective contend that the ruling lacked a solid constitutional basis and thus represented an example of judicial overreach.
Barrett’s framing connects to a larger conservative critique of what they describe as an activist judiciary—one that creates rights rather than interprets law based on the Constitution’s text and the framers’ intent. This debate continues to animate discussions on the role of the Supreme Court in American democracy, particularly on high-stakes cultural issues like abortion.
