Justice Barrett Talks 'Fidelity To The Text The People Adopted'

SOUTH BEND, IND. — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett likened the debate over federal courts' ability to make equitable decisions to the debate over constitutional interpretation during remarks at the University of Notre Dame on Monday, citing a ruling by the high court last year to emphasize that judges don't always have the ability to step in and remedy "unjust results or unfairness."

The newest associate justice of the nation's top court paid a visit to her law school alma mater — where she was also a popular law professor — to give the keynote address at a symposium on federal equity power. Speaking to a hall packed with students, Justice Barrett said the tension over that power is a familiar one, because in the "sister" debate over how to interpret the constitution, there's a nearly identical tension between "the virtues of flexibility and fairness on the one hand, and the virtues of the rule of law and constraint on the other."

To illustrate, Justice Barrett cited the majority's holding in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo SA v. Alliance Bond Fund Inc. in 1999, in which the high court agreed with a failing Mexican company that argued federal courts lacked the equitable power to grant an injunction barring it from transferring assets that could be used to satisfy its debts. In a dissent, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had called for more flexibility, noting that while federal courts hadn't traditionally issued that kind of relief before, that could have simply reflected a reduced historical need of that kind of urgent relief when debtors couldn't shed assets so quickly, Justice Barrett said.

Ultimately, however, the U.S. Supreme Court held in that case that federal courts must exercise the equitable power as it existed at the time of the founding, she said. Equity jurisdiction gives federal courts access to a body of law, Justice Barrett said, it "does not empower federal judges to be lawmakers."

"So, too, with interpretation. The point of the constitution and its system of separated power is for the people to govern themselves. And federal judges have only the power that the people have given them," Justice Barrett said. "In matters of interpretation, that means fidelity to the text the people adopted."

And she drew attention to a more recent high court case to highlight that when that text is clear, "everyone agrees that judges' hands are bound," and that they "don't have the ability to step in and always ameliorate unjust results or unfairness."

The Supreme Court ruled in June in Terry v. U.S. that a sentencing reform law gives relief only to those serving time in prison for possessing larger quantities of crack, not the smallest amounts. Although she agreed with the result, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called on Congress to fix the "injustice."

While Justice Sotomayor would fall on the pragmatist side of the constitutional interpretation debate, her comments also recognized the limitation of the court to issue a remedy in that case, and called on lawmakers to do so instead, Justice Barrett said.

"Most often, the law itself is what delivers justice. But when it doesn't, it's up to you, as the people, to change it," she said.

Justice Barrett is the second U.S. Supreme Court justice to speak at Notre Dame in recent months. Justice Samuel Alito gave a speech at the law school in September, where he offered a full-throated defense of the high court's so-called shadow docket.

Saying her visit allowed her to experience "a slice of my old life," Justice Barrett also spoke briefly of her transition to the nation's top court following her speech.

While the "bread and butter" of her job now is the same as it was when she served on the Seventh Circuit, the visibility of the cases and the work is an adjustment, she said, noting it's been a bit like "learning to ride a bike with everyone watching you."

--Additional reporting by Jimmy Hoover. Editing by Michael Watanabe.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.