Vacancy Filled: A Transformative Difference in SCOTUS
- WULR Team
- Apr 16
- 3 min read
Originalism and the Consequences of a Swift Judicial Appointment
Published April 16th, 2026
Written by Addie Merrick
Upon the death of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September of 2020, President Trump swiftly nominated Justice Amy Coney Barret eight days later, solidifying a conservative majority on the Court. Due to the vast difference in their interpretations of and beliefs surrounding the Constitution, immediate political dissension ensued as Justice Coney Barrett stepped in as Justice Ginsburg’s successor. The public’s mourning shifted into uncertainty surrounding the future of the decisions of the Supreme Court, and the stark contrast between Justice Ginsburg and Justice Coney Barrett’s interpretations of the Constitution created heightened political tensions.
A pivotal turning point in the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence occurred with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in 2022. While Justice Ginsburg was no longer on the court in the time of the case, many remained reflective of her prior opinions while Justice Coney Barrett joined the majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Justice Ginsburg noted in the 1990s that reproductive rights were central to a woman’s dignity, conceding that government control of these rights was not in alignment with the Constitution. Further, she criticized Roe v. Wade’s doctrinal reasoning, lamenting that it stretched too far in the change that it ordered. Neil Siegel, a professor of law at Duke University and former clerk for Justice Ginsburg, noted that Justice Ginsburg criticized the case “for its lack of incrementalism, for going too far, too fast.” While Justice Ginsburg did not outwardly criticize the outcome of the case, she instead criticized the basis on which it was reasoned.
Conversely, Justice Barrett’s notions surrounding the case encapsulated ideas of originalism in constitutional interpretation. In a New York Times interview, Justice Barrett deemed that the concept of liberty couldn’t be an open vessel in judicial interpretation and that this flexible interpretation would hinder a durable democratic society. Further, Justice Barrett’s concessions regarding Roe v. Wade and it’s “free-floating” nature in an interview by a Nixon Foundation board member highlight an originalist perspective in her pivotal decisions made on the Supreme Court. Siding with other Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, Justice Barrett was deemed an originalist proponent. Reactions to this designation, however, varied.
Gallup News’ poll results confirmed that 51% majority of Americans supported Trump’s appointment of Justice Barrett to the court, while 46% of Americans dissented. While many Americans voiced strong opinions on the timing of Justice Barrett’s nomination following Justice Ginsburg’s death, the public’s initial support was higher than either of President Donald Trump’s two previous nominees. For the many others, however, Justice Barrett’s originalist approach remains unfavorable and misaligned with Justice Ginsburg’s contextual approach. Gallup News’ results also found that opposition to the appointment was strikingly higher than any other nominee’s initial reading.
While the reactions to this nomination varied significantly, it nonetheless reflects a rightwards shift of SCOTUS that upholds an originalist mode of thinking and interpretation of the Constitution. While Justice Ginsburg interpreted the Constitution as a document that must be fluid with the changing dynamic of the United States, the originalist perspective that appears to be growing within SCOTUS views the Constitution in a manner much different. President Trump’s swift nomination in the midst of the 2020 election reflected a jurisprudential recalibration still reflected in SCOTUS decisions today.
