The Real A.C.B

Data and analysis bring clarity to the question of whether Barrett is the weak link on a conservatively dominated Court

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, once celebrated as a stalwart conservative and a crowning achievement of the Trump presidency, now finds herself under fire from the very base that championed her confirmation. Her recent vote in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, where she sided with Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberal bloc to reject former President Donald Trump’s attempt to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from the MAGA movement and right-wing commentators. Accusations of her being a “DEI judge” and a “rattled law professor” have flooded social media, with figures like Mike Davis and Laura Loomer leading the charge.

For many conservatives, Barrett’s occasional alignment with the Court’s liberal wing—seen in cases involving executive power, procedural fairness, and environmental regulation—has been a bitter disappointment. As NBC News reported, MAGA activists have turned against Barrett, with Davis calling her “weak and timid” and accusing her of having “her head up her a--.” Similarly, The Guardian highlighted how right-wing figures like Mike Cernovich and Mark Levin have labeled her a “DEI hire” and “evil,” suggesting her appointment was more about identity politics than conservative judicial philosophy.

Despite this backlash, some conservatives have come to Barrett’s defense. CNN noted that prominent legal figures like Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society have argued that the criticism is an overreaction to a procedural ruling, not a substantive one. Hiram Sasser of the First Liberty Institute pointed out that Barrett’s vote in the USAid case was preliminary and did not indicate her final stance on the merits. Meanwhile, Public Discourse pushed back against the narrative, reminding critics that Barrett has been a reliable conservative vote in landmark cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

Barrett’s defenders argue that her occasional breaks from the conservative bloc reflect a commitment to judicial restraint and legal principles rather than political loyalty. As Newsweek observed, Barrett and Roberts have previously joined the liberal justices to check executive overreach, as seen in their decision to deny Trump’s request to delay sentencing in his New York hush-money case. These rulings, while unpopular with some on the right, underscore Barrett’s independence.

As the Supreme Court continues to navigate high-stakes cases, Barrett’s judicial philosophy—rooted in legalism rather than partisanship—has made her both a target for criticism and a beacon of hope for those seeking moderation in an increasingly polarized Court. Whether she is a “disappointment” or a principled jurist depends on whom you ask, but one thing is clear: Amy Coney Barrett is no longer the unifying conservative figure many had hoped for.

Is there any credulity in the analysis of Barrett pulling apart from her conservative colleagues on the Court? Let’s unpack the data.

Statistics

Agreement

The first way to analyze Justice Barrett’s voting proclivities is by looking at who she aligns with most frequently on the Court based on the Court’s opinions. So far this term Barrett has not voted on the same side as the justices the following number of times: Thomas (2), Gorsuch (3), Kagan (2), Sotomayor (3), Jackson (4), Kavanaugh (3), and Roberts (3), Alito (1). The graph below shows the percentages of shared votes with Justice Barrett and each other justice on the Court for the 2020 through 2023 Supreme Court terms.