In her short tenure as a Supreme Court Justice, Amy Coney Barrett has shown moments of independence, deviating from the conservative majority in some key cases. Despite being appointed by former President Donald Trump and solidifying the Court's conservative supermajority, Barrett has proven that she is not simply "the law of Amy."

Throughout the most recent term, which included significant wins for Trump and blows to federal regulation, Barrett's opinions reflected a willingness to diverge from the conservative bloc. For instance, she wrote sharp dissents in a case related to the U.S. Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, as well as in a case involving downwind air pollution regulation.

One notable disagreement with the conservative majority came in a case involving Trump's historic immunity ruling. Although Barrett sided with the majority on the overall decision, she expressed disagreement with the finding that restricted the evidence that prosecutors could use against presidents in criminal cases. Barrett wrote that the Constitution does not require juries to be kept in the dark about the circumstances surrounding a president's conduct.

Additionally, Barrett's opinion in the same case suggested that there was no plausible argument for barring prosecution of a particular indictment against Trump, offering a potential pathway for the case to proceed. Legal experts have taken note of Barrett's emergence as a principled voice in the middle of the Court, even though her impact is somewhat muted by Chief Justice John Roberts' consistently conservative votes.

Barrett's independent streak was further visible in a dissent she authored in a case related to the January 6 attack. She criticized Roberts and the majority for making it more challenging for prosecutors to charge rioters with obstruction, describing their reasoning as "textual backflips."

While Barrett generally aligns with the conservative majority, there are distinct instances where she departs from the expected. For example, she chided the Court's liberal wing for the "stridency" of its separate concurrence in a case that decided to keep Trump on the ballot. Similarly, Barrett joined the Court's liberal justices in a decision halting the implementation of an Environmental Protection Agency plan to combat air pollution, asserting that the majority's arguments were feeble and cherry-picked.

Nevertheless, despite these occasional departures, Barrett typically sides with the conservative majority. In over five dozen cases considered by the Court this year, Barrett joined the majority approximately 92% of the time. This places her as the third-most frequent justice to side with the majority, trailing behind Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Overall, while Barrett's independent streak may not drastically alter the direction of the Court, it showcases her unique perspective and approach. As the newest addition to the Supreme Court, she has established herself as a principled voice that brings something new to the table.