In a revealing conversation with The New York Times, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett acknowledged the limitations of the court in enforcing its decisions, especially if they clash with the political objectives of the Trump administration. During the interview with columnist Ross Douthat on his podcast, Barrett highlighted the court’s lack of enforcement power, noting, “We interpret the Constitution and rely on precedents, but without the power of the purse or the sword, our tools are limited.”

This dialogue surfaced amid a broader discourse on how justices consider the prevailing legal environment and political climate when shaping their rulings. Douthat remarked on the plausibility of a scenario where Trump or another president might disregard a court ruling, quipping, “Interesting ruling, Justice Barrett. Good luck enforcing it.”

Barrett elaborated on the court’s role in maintaining the balance of power among government branches. She explained, “The court must consider the long-term institutional dynamics, such as those between a current and future president, and the power balance between the executive and legislative branches. These concerns have always been integral to our decisions on the separation of powers, as they are deeply rooted in the constitutional structure.”

Justice Barrett’s path to the Supreme Court began with her nomination by President Donald Trump during his first term, following the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a figure celebrated for her liberal legacy. Barrett, who once clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, became the third and final justice appointed by Trump to secure a position on the bench.

President Donald Trump nominated Barrett to the Supreme Court during his first term in office, just after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was widely viewed as a liberal icon. A former clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett was the third and final of Trump’s Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed to the bench.

Earlier in the discussion, Barrett reiterated that she, like Scalia, is a proponent of “originalism,” which she defined as “the proposition that the Constitution should be interpreted consistently with the meaning that the words of the Constitution had at the time that it was ratified,” adding, “where the meaning of those words can be discerned, it is decisive.”

While there are numerous interpretations of originalism, a key component of the Scalia-influenced theory espoused by Barrett is that of the “unitary executive,” meaning that the president “has to control the executive branch.”

As Barrett explained, the structural theory behind the unitary executive theory implies “strong presidential power over executive agencies.”

According to Barrett:

There has been a lot of debate and some new originalist scholarship debating right now whether indeed it has sound originalist credentials. But yes, it is one that has traditionally been associated with originalists.

You can see this in debates during the Great Depression and F.D.R. and the New Deal and the explosion of the administrative state. Back then, you had a debate about how much Congress could create administrative agencies that fell outside the president’s control.

And there were some who said: No, the executive branch has to be fully within the executive’s control. And others who favored the New Deal expansion of the administrative state who said: No, Congress can take agencies and make them independent of the president’s control.

Barrett and her five colleagues on the conservative bloc of the court are poised to take several steps toward turning this theory into reality during the court’s latest term, as the court appears likely to overturn longstanding precedents involving the president’s authority to remove members from independent federal agencies without cause as well as the authority to issue line-item vetos, which allow the president to reject particular provisions of a bill, such as refusing to spend money specifically allocated by Congress.