Justice Barrett Responds To Possible Trump Third Term
Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett addressed President Donald J. Trump’s lighthearted suggestion about a possible third term, offering a straightforward answer rooted in the Constitution while stressing the importance of judicial restraint in America’s legal system.
In a wide-ranging Fox News interview with anchor Bret Baier, Barrett discussed her new book, constitutional interpretation, and the 22nd Amendment — which limits presidents to two terms and was ratified in 1951 following Franklin Roosevelt’s unprecedented four elections.
Baier pressed Barrett on whether the amendment’s text was “cut and dry.” Barrett responded plainly: “True. … You know, after FDR had four terms, that’s what that amendment says.”
She explained the balance between the Constitution’s specific directives — such as requiring the president to be at least 35 years old — and its broader guarantees like freedom of speech, which extend far beyond handing out pamphlets in a town square. Barrett used the point to reinforce her commitment to originalism, emphasizing that the Constitution provides enduring principles, not a “living” document to be rewritten by judges.
In a separate interview with CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, Barrett pushed back against the idea of the Supreme Court acting as a political body. “The court should not be imposing its own values on the American people. That’s for the democratic process,” she said, stressing that laws must be rooted in either the Constitution or statutes passed by elected representatives, not in judicial activism.
Her judicial philosophy has already played a pivotal role in reshaping American law. Months after she joined the Court in 2020, the justices overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, returning authority over abortion laws to the states.
Barrett’s book outlines how the Court has recognized some rights — such as marriage, sexual intimacy, birth control, and parenting — as fundamental, while excluding others, including abortion, suicide, and commercial activity.
The Court may soon revisit another landmark case: Obergefell v. Hodges, which imposed same-sex marriage on all 50 states in 2015. Former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds, has petitioned the Court to overturn the ruling. With the Court’s conservative shift and past comments from justices like Clarence Thomas questioning Obergefell, the case could reopen one of the nation’s most contentious cultural debates.
If Obergefell were overturned, marriage laws would once again be decided at the state level — restoring authority to voters and legislatures rather than unelected justices.
Barrett’s recent comments underscore a theme running through her book and public remarks: the Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution as written, not to bend it to fit elite cultural or political trends.