Justice Amy Coney Barrett Addresses Faith and Judicial Decision-Making in CBS Interview

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has faced criticism that her Catholic faith shapes her judicial philosophy, directly addressed the issue in a recent interview with CBS News, firmly rejecting the idea that her religious beliefs affect her judicial decisions while promoting her new book about constitutional interpretation.

Barrett’s Direct Response on Faith

It does not affect how I vote. And I think that’s a misconception about me.

— Justice Amy Coney Barrett, CBS News Interview

My faith does not affect the content of my decisions.

— Justice Barrett’s emphatic clarification

When asked by CBS journalist Nora O’Donnell whether her religious beliefs affect her decisions as a justice, Barrett pushed back strongly against the idea. She noted that this misconception was present during her confirmation hearings and wanted to set the record straight.

🎯 Barrett’s Key Argument

If anything, Barrett said, her faith helps her to “maintain my commitment not to let the faith” interfere with her decisions. She frames her religious beliefs as actually supporting judicial neutrality rather than compromising it.

Constitutional Oath and Pluralistic Foundation

Judicial Oath: Barrett explained that, like every justice, she swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States, which reflects the country’s pluralistic foundation.
No State Religion: Unlike some European nations, she noted, the U.S. has no state religion and the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion and speech.
Religious Diversity: “We are a country where we have a range of different religions, no religion at all, and certainly different opinions,” Barrett said.

It is emphatically not my job to impose my belief system on anyone else.

— Justice Barrett on judicial restraint

⚖️ Historical Context: The Confirmation Controversy

During her 2017 appeals court confirmation hearing, Barrett faced sharp questioning about whether her Catholic faith might influence her rulings.

2017 Confirmation Hearing

Then-Sen. Dianne Feinstein told Barrett that “dogma and law are two different things” and suggested that Barrett’s writings made it seem “the dogma lives loudly within you,” raising concerns about her impartiality on major issues.

Barrett’s Written Defense in New Book

In her book, Barrett writes extensively about the criticism she’s faced as a person of faith in her profession:

Some suggest that people of faith have a particularly difficult time following the law rather than their moral views. (I faced that criticism as a Catholic, most sharply when the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing to consider my nomination to the Seventh Circuit.) I’m not sure why.

— From “Listening to the Law”

🔍 Barrett’s Counter-Argument

“Fortunately for the health of our country, people of faith are not the only Americans with firm convictions about right and wrong,” Barrett wrote. “Nonreligious judges also have deeply held moral commitments, which means that they too face conflicts between those commitments and the demands of the law.”

📺 Additional CBS Interview Highlights

Supreme Court Defense: Barrett defended the Supreme Court as nonpolitical and rejected the idea that justices enable presidents or Congress
Collegiality: She affirmed her respect for Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson despite sharp written exchanges, recalling hosting Jackson for a welcome dinner
Roe v. Wade: On the Dobbs decision, Barrett said it returned abortion to the states, arguing that such questions belong to the democratic process, not the court
Hypotheticals: She explained why she avoids weighing in on hypothetical scenarios outside of actual cases

📸 Official photos show Justice Barrett during her Associated Press interview at the Supreme Court, September 3, 2025, ahead of her book release. Additional images include the current Supreme Court composition with all nine justices, including recent addition Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Broader Implications

Barrett’s comments come at a time when the Supreme Court faces scrutiny over its perceived political alignment and the role of personal beliefs in judicial decision-making. Her direct response aims to address long-standing questions about how religious faith intersects with constitutional interpretation.

The justice’s emphasis on her oath to the Constitution and America’s pluralistic foundations reflects ongoing debates about the separation of church and state, judicial neutrality, and the role of personal convictions in legal interpretation.