— Justice Amy Coney Barrett told CBS News that Supreme Court decisions should reflect law and precedent, not the personal views of the nine justices, as the court considers a petition to revisit the 2015 ruling that recognized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Key takeaways
- Barrett gave her comments during a CBS News Sunday Morning interview, her first TV sit down since joining the court in 2020.
- She emphasized that the court should not impose its own values, arguing such matters belong to the democratic process.
- Barrett promoted a forthcoming book, Listening to the Law, due 9 September 2025, and addressed her role in recent high profile rulings.
- Public polling shows majorities support abortion rights and same-sex marriage: a May 2024 poll found over 60% favor legal abortion in most or all cases; a May 2025 Gallup poll found 68% back same-sex marriage.
- The court is weighing a request to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision that recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.
- Barrett noted the court must distinguish law from opinion, saying judges do not run opinion polls of public sentiment.
- Her confirmation in 2020 helped create a 6-3 conservative majority on the court that has since issued several landmark rulings.
Verified facts
In a broadcast preview released 6 September 2025, Barrett spoke with host Norah O’Donnell about her new book, Listening to the Law: Reflections on the Court and Constitution, which is scheduled for publication on 9 September 2025. The interview was described as her first televised interview since she joined the Supreme Court in 2020.
Barrett told CBS that judicial rulings are not an exercise in taking a popularity measure of the nine justices. She said the judiciary should avoid imposing its own values and instead seek to apply legal principles and precedent while respecting the role of the democratic branches.
The interview and book comments referenced the court’s controversial recent docket. The Dobbs decision of June 2022 removed federal abortion protections, a shift Barrett characterized in the book as respecting choice by returning questions to states and voters. The Guardian and CNN published excerpts discussing Barrett’s view that the earlier Roe framework had overreached.
Public polling remains relevant to the public debate. A May 2024 poll reported more than 60% of respondents favored legal abortion in all or most cases. Separately, Gallup measured 68% support for same-sex marriage in May 2025. At issue now is a petition asking the court to revisit Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 case that established a federal right to same-sex marriage.
Context and impact
The court�s current 6-3 conservative majority was completed following Barrett’s 2020 confirmation, which occurred eight days before the November 2020 presidential election. That majority has issued rulings that have reshaped federal policy on several matters, prompting debate over judicial philosophy and institutional role.
If the court were to retreat from Obergefell, marriage law could return primarily to state legislatures and courts, producing divergent rules across the country. Legal scholars say such a move would immediately affect licensing, benefits access, and related family law matters in jurisdictions that choose to limit recognition.
- Practical effects could include variations in marriage licensing and recognition between states.
- Businesses and employers might face a more complex patchwork of state rules for benefits and family leave.
- Legal challenges and state-level legislation would likely follow any major change to national marriage protections.
Official statements
The court should not be imposing its own values on the American people, and rulings are not simply a measure of whether the court thinks something is good or bad, but an attempt to apply the law.
Amy Coney Barrett, CBS News Sunday Morning
Unconfirmed
- Predictions that the court will treat same-sex marriage the same way it treated abortion remain forecasting, not established outcomes.
- Reports of the exact influence of public opinion on specific justices decisions are speculative beyond the justices’ public remarks.
Bottom line
Barrett’s interview and upcoming book restate a conservative view of judicial restraint, framing contested social issues as matters for voters and legislatures rather than for judges to resolve by preference. The court faces a consequential choice over Obergefell that could reshape marriage law across the United States and trigger broad legal and political responses.