Amy Coney Barrett's book fails to support originalism

In the United States, Amy Coney Barrett, a Supreme Court justice, released her new book titled "Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution". In the book, Barrett presents a blend of memoir and her views on judicial philosophy, with a focus on her originalist perspective. She engages with several contentious issues, particularly abortion and the death penalty, which are of significant interest to the public. However, critiques have emerged regarding her approach to originalism, particularly concerning her interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A notable example in her discourse is the case of Lochner v. New York (1905), which she references to illustrate what she perceives as judicial malfeasance when in fact the case can be argued differently. Barrett cites the dissenting opinion of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. as a vantage point for understanding her position on judicial deference related to state regulations and economic liberty. This dissent suggests that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect an unenumerated right to economic liberty, a perspective that Barrett implies. Yet the principal author of the amendment, Congressman John Bingham, argued that the provisions guarantee rights to work and secure the fruits of one’s labor. The historical consensus at the time of the amendment's adoption indicates that the Lochner majority's interpretation aligns more closely with the original public meaning of the Constitution. Critics note that Barrett's examination neglects this historical context and does not fully address the implications of her own originalist philosophy. While her work aims to promote understanding of the Constitution's historical meaning, it ultimately falls short in applying that very principle to her discussions, leading to concerns about the fidelity of her interpretation of originalism in contemporary judicial thought. As the discussion surrounding originalism continues within legal circles, the necessary intersection of historical evidence remains a significant point of contention.