Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s new memoir has drawn sharp criticism from The New York Times, where book critic Jennifer Szalai described it as a polished but guarded attempt to shape her public image.
The memoir, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, was reviewed Monday by Szalai, who called the book a “carefully controlled performance” that offers readers only fragments of Barrett’s vision for the future of the Supreme Court.
“I kept thinking about this spectacularly scornful line while reading Barrett’s new book,” Szalai wrote, pointing to what she saw as an underlying detachment throughout the work. In one section of the memoir, Barrett recounted hosting a dinner for the newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.
She wrote that she served dishes Jackson favored and arranged for a Broadway performer to sing songs from Hamilton. Szalai noted that the event made for a “pleasant (if surreal) scene” but added, “if you really listen to what Barrett says… you’ll quickly realize that she isn’t on the Supreme Court because she wants to make friends.”
The review suggested that Barrett’s background as a former law professor and circuit court judge has influenced her writing style, which Szalai described as measured and highly curated. “Barrett, a former law professor and circuit court judge, clearly knows that readers crave relatability, especially from women, so she deigns to offer a few breadcrumbs,” Szalai wrote. “But her book is inevitably a controlled performance, as careful and disciplined as its author.”
Beyond questions of tone, Szalai also raised concerns about the way Barrett addresses key legal principles. She pointed to the book’s emphasis on the “rule of law,” a “pluralistic society,” and the value of “stability.” According to Szalai, these themes appear inconsistent with Barrett’s judicial record and her silence on controversial moments during the Trump administration.
“Given all the nice things she has to say about ‘the rule of law,’ ‘pluralistic society’ and the importance of ‘stability,’ you might think that Barrett would be at least somewhat perturbed by the Trump administration’s incessant defiance of lower courts’ orders,” Szalai argued. “But that doesn’t seem to be the case.”
Barrett’s memoir arrives at a time when public confidence in the Supreme Court remains low and justices face heightened scrutiny over ethics and partisanship. While the book may provide glimpses of her personal interactions and reflections, Szalai concluded that its restraint ultimately reveals more about Barrett’s caution than her character.