Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Amy Coney Barrett (R), U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee for associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, speaks as U.S. President Donald Trump listens during an announcement ceremony at the White House on September 26, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images)

Amy Coney Barrett (R), U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee for associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, speaks as U.S. President Donald Trump listens during an announcement ceremony at the White House on September 26, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service via Getty Images)

Amy Coney Barrett Is Not Qualified to Be a Supreme Court Justice

Barrett acknowledges she applies a "religious test" to every legal decision. Her legal philosophy should disqualify her.

Alan Singer

Opposition to Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, has centered on his efforts to put her on the bench weeks before a Presidential election and her rightwing judicial positions. In three years since Trump appointed her a federal appeals court judge, Barrett has opposed reproductive freedom, gun regulation, immigrant rights, and efforts to combat discrimination. Ultimately disqualifying, however, are Barnett’s own statements about how her religious views shape her legal philosophy and that her primary goal as a lawyer is “building the Kingdom of God,” not defending the Constitution of the United States.

Since the Constitution forbids a “religious test,” Amy Coney Barrett’s membership in a Christian fundamentalist group is not a disqualification for office, however, her legal philosophy is.

Supreme Court Justices are required to take two oaths of office prior to taking their lifetime position on the court, the Judicial Oath and the Constitutional Oath. According to Article VI of the United States Constitution, all judicial officers “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.” It also says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Since passage of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, judicial appointees affirm that they “will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . .  under the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Since the Constitution forbids a “religious test,” Amy Coney Barrett’s membership in a Christian fundamentalist group is not a disqualification for office, however, her legal philosophy is. Barnett would be swearing to something she does not believe and will not do, which is a federal offense. 

In 2017 Senate confirmation hearings, Barrett asserted “If you’re asking whether I take my faith seriously and I’m a faithful Catholic — I am, although I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear in the discharge of my duties as a judge.” However, according to a 1998 journal article that Barrett co-authored, “(Catholic judges) are . . . obliged to adhere to their church’s teaching on moral matters.” In the same article, the authors quoted Justice William Brennan, who argued at his Senate confirmation hearing that in his position on the Supreme Court “what shall control me is the oath that I took to support the Constitution and laws of the United States and [I shall] so act upon the cases that come before me for decision that it is that oath and that alone which governs.” Barrett and her co-author commented that “We do not defend this position as the proper response for a Catholic judge to take with respect to abortion or the death penalty”. 

In a 2006 commencement speech to graduates of Notre Dame Law School, Barrett went even further in spelling out the role of religion in her legal philosophy proclaiming “A legal career is but a means to an end ... and that end is building the Kingdom of God.” Barrett also recommended that Catholic lawyers consult “God before making a choice” asking God, “In which situation can I best serve You? . . . we are a community engaged in the enterprise of legal education and scholarship, we are also a community engaged in the enterprise of bringing about the kingdom of God.” 

The United States Constitution says that judicial officers should not be subject to a religious test. The problem is that Amy Coney Barrett acknowledges she applies a “religious test” to every legal decision. Barrett has the absolute right to apply her “religious test” in her personal life and in her legal career, but not as a Supreme Court Justice and that is why her legal philosophy should disqualify her.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Alan Singer

Alan Singer

Alan Singer is a historian and teacher educator at Hofstra University.

NYC Mayoral Candidate Eric Adams Rebuked for 'Dangerous' 400-Students-to-1-Teacher Theory

"Defunding schools to the point that we have a 400:1 student-to-teacher ratio so we can bankroll another huge expansion in an already-multibillion dollar police budget," said Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, "is how you build a school-to-prison pipeline."

Jon Queally, staff writer ·


Lack of Patent Waiver Would Add Over $70 Billion to Cost of Vaccinating World: Oxfam

Most of that money, said a spokesperson for the group, "will go directly into the pockets" of Big Pharma shareholders.

Jon Queally, staff writer ·


Darnella Frazier Receives Pulitzer Special Citation 'for Courageously Recording the Murder of George Floyd'

"Without Darnella, Derek Chauvin never would have been tried and George Floyd would have been blamed by the state for his own death."

Brett Wilkins, staff writer ·


'We Are Sounding the Alarm': Global Left Warns Right-Wing Fujimori Trying to Steal Election in Peru

"Fujimori’s only way forward to victory is simple: annul tens of thousands of already tallied votes," warned Progressive International. "Powerful forces are organizing to deliver this outcome."

Andrea Germanos, staff writer ·


'Climate Denial Masquerading as Bipartisanship': Progressives Reject Latest Infrastructure Compromise

"Refusing to act on climate means selling out future generations. The future of our planet and the health of our communities are non-negotiable."

Jake Johnson, staff writer ·