Barrett's recusal signals hope for rule of law at the Supreme Court

It seems that hardly a day goes by, or maybe even an hour, without President Trump issuing another unprecedented executive order.

It is a toss-up which is the worst — attempting to abolish birthright citizenship, firing inspectors general without notice to Congress, freezing government spending for essential programs, imposing a gag on health care agencies — but they will no doubt keep coming.

An executive order is the president’s directive to enforce or interpret the law in a particular way, under Article II of the Constitution, which vests the “executive power” in “a President of the United States of America.”

Executive orders are nonetheless subject to statutory and constitutional law. Thus, lawsuits have already challenged some of Trump’s orders, in several cases leading to preliminary injunctions that have not yet been reviewed by higher courts.

We can therefore hope that the Supreme Court will be the backstop to at least some of Trump’s most extreme measures.

Yes, I know that the Supreme Court hasn’t exactly been tough on Trump. The six-to-three conservative majority gave him a series of favorable rulings during the 2024 campaign, the most shocking of which held him immune from prosecution of illegal acts during his first term.

But unlike Trump’s first term, there are no grown-ups in the Cabinet to restrain his worst impulses, as he has filled his administration with Fox News commentators and other supine loyalists. Republicans in Congress have already demonstrated eager acquiescence, to put it mildly, by confirming so many manifestly unqualified nominees.

That leaves the Supreme Court, with all its flaws, to determine whether Trump’s assault on democratic values will prevail. It is a fraught task, made even more difficult by the court’s dwindling reserve of public confidence, and the fury with which the MAGA faithful would greet any adverse rulings.

At least two conservative justices would have to defect in order to invalidate any of Trump’s directives. There is a chance, however dim, that could happen.

The prime candidate is Chief Justice John Roberts, who showed some independence by departing from the majority opinion in the Dobbs case, which overruled Roe v. Wade.

Among Trump’s three appointees, Justice Amy Coney Barrett is probably the likeliest defector, having disagreed with the other conservatives (although not voting against them) in two of Trump’s 2024 election cases.

Barrett has also shown admirable integrity. She recently recused herself from an Establishment Clause case over public funding for religious charter schools, an issue that would ordinarily be important to her. Unfortunately, Barrett provided no explanation for her recusal, noting in a single sentence that she would take “no part in the decision or consideration” of the case.

Although Barrett’s order did not mention it, the Notre Dame Law School’s Religious Liberty Clinic represents one of the parties to the case. Barrett is a Notre Dame alumna, and she was a full-time professor there before becoming a judge. She continues to teach at Notre Dame as an adjunct, drawing a $15,000 salary, although not in the clinic.

It is impossible to know Barrett’s reasoning. Was her recusal because of the Notre Dame connection? If so, which aspect of it? If not, what was it? It has been suggested that she is close friends with two of the Religious Liberty Clinic’s faculty fellows, although it is unknown whether they played any role in the Supreme Court case.

This might seem like a small matter, but it may provide a window into Barrett’s style of judging.

Barrett’s disqualification is significant because many federal judges, and most of the justices, teach at law schools from time to time, and it is common for law schools to have clinics that litigate in federal courts.

Her recusal may imply, sub silentio, that other judges should disqualify themselves in similar cases, where a law school clinic serves as counsel and the judge teaches at the same school. Or it may not if Barrett’s recusal was for some other reason, known only to her and perhaps a few others.

Trump, of course, will rail against any loss in the Supreme Court, no doubt insulting the justices who rule against him. Worse, he will surely take advantage of even the slightest latitude or ambiguity.

If, and hopefully when, the Supreme Court invalidates his most abusive executive orders, perhaps by a bare majority, the decisions will need to be unequivocal, with maximum detail and lucidity.

Given her status as a possible deciding vote against Trump, Barrett’s commitment to transparency and clear explanation would be especially important. Withholding her recusal reasons was within her discretion, but one must still wonder about future opacity, which would be a mistake.

I realize that there are far weightier concerns on the horizon than the adequacy of Barrett’s explanations. But attention to small things can still matter when great issues are at stake.

Perhaps it seems that I have only suggested rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but even that can be useful if they get in the way of the lifeboats.

Steven Lubet is the Williams Memorial Professor Emeritus at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.

Topics

Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein jailed as flight risk after cryptocurrency hiding claim

SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein was indicted in January on charges alleging he failed to declare millions of dollars in poker winnings.
CNBC - 8h
Federal judge rules White House failed to comply with court order on funding

A federal judge in Rhode Island said that the Trump administration had violated his order halting a sweeping federal funding freeze and ordered the government to “immediately restore frozen ...
NBC News - 9h
European Court Ruling Gives Hope in Italy Region Known for Toxic Waste

The European Court of Human Rights took Italy to task for not protecting citizens in an area where illegal dumping and burning of toxic waste has long been linked to cancers. Residents say it’s ...
The New York Times - 1d
Hawaii court ruling makes way for $4B Maui wildfire settlement

The massive inferno in the historic town of Lahaina was the deadliest in the U.S. in more than a century.
CBS News - 8h
Ex-supreme court judge says ‘arguable case’ Israel’s conduct in Gaza is genocidal

Lord Sumption says Israel’s actions ‘grossly disproportionate’ and in new book points to suppression of free speech over Palestinian cause. . A former UK supreme court judge has described Israel’s ...
The Guardian - 20h
Supreme Court Signals That Landmark Libel Ruling Is Secure

Attacked by two justices, lower-court judges and litigants, the 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan keeps getting cited approvingly in the Supreme Court’s decisions.
The New York Times - 22h
Merz signals he is open to reforming Germany’s strict borrowing rules

Election frontrunner suggests he could back an overhaul of the requirement that caps deficit at 0.35 per cent of GDP
Financial Times - 1d
The Guardian view on Trump and the international criminal court: following the law of the jungle | Editorial

The US president’s attack on an essential institution speaks volumes about his broader foreign policy. Donald Trump’s vicious assault on the international criminal court is no surprise. His last ...
The Guardian - 3d
Iran supreme leader says US talks 'not intelligent' but doesn't rule them out

Iran’s supreme leader says that negotiations with America “are not intelligent, wise or honorable” after President Donald Trump floated nuclear talks with Tehran
ABC News - 4d