Quoted by Reuters
During a March public appearance with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested on encouraging compromise on the U.S. Supreme Court through narrower rulings rather than broad, sweeping decisions.
“Not everything has to be decided in an opinion,” Barrett said.
More Read
In regard of a landmark ruling on Presidential immunity,
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that former president Donald Trump has broad immunity from prosecution for official acts taken in office.
Barrett voted with her fellow conservatives but refused to join them in part of the opinion she thought went too far.
Moreover, there are conflicts among the conservative justices of the Supreme Court, despite their 6-3 conservative majority. Barrett who as appointed by Trump in 2020, frequently votes with conservatives but exhibits a preference for more restrained, moderate decisions.
University of Notre Dame Law School professor Sherif Girgis said the court can decide more – or less – in a case, as it sees fit.
“Justice Barrett seems likelier than others to use that flexibility to decide less, or to leave an issue for later resolution, especially if she thinks that deciding more would require the court to settle a bunch of open questions about how to implement a more sweeping approach,” Girgis said.
Barrett disagreed with the recent immunity ruling’s finding that juries cannot examine evidence pertaining to official activities, which are now widely shielded, in any prosecution involving a former president—not even in cases involving private conduct.
