Justice Amy Coney Barrett pushed back against the characterization of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent term as “divisive” during an appearance in Colorado Springs on Friday, while also acknowledging the enhanced security protocols she is now subject to.

“I would say I quibble with the premise that it was a divisive term because I think this past term, basically — and it’s a repeat of history and all the other terms — it’s a small percentage of cases that generate the most heat,” she said.

Barrett was the featured “Fireside Chat” speaker at the Bench & Bar Conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Also in attendance was Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who spoke at the conference briefly on Thursday.

During the largely friendly interview with Chief Judge Jerome A. Holmes of Oklahoma and Judge Allison H. Eid of Colorado, Barrett distanced herself from the more bombastic writing styles of other justices, including her former boss, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“Personally, my style isn’t to be as spicy, say, in dissent writing,” she said. “I try not to write that way myself. Although — I’m junior, I’m not writing the big cases — maybe that will change down the road. Don’t hold me to it. But that is not my particular style.”

The interview did not cover the substantive work of the Supreme Court, including its recent high-stakes decisions addressing Donald Trump’s immunity from criminal liability, pulling back executive agencies’ discretion to interpret federal law when crafting regulations, and resolving challenges to gun and abortion rights.

Despite her rejection of the “divisive” label, Barrett touched on a recent need for personal security enhancements, as evidenced by the court’s 2024 request for more than $19 million to address “evolving risks.”

“There was a time, at one point, I was sent home from work with a bulletproof vest,” she said. Barrett added, to laughter, that one of her children saw the vest and said, “That is so cool! Can I try it on?”

Earlier in the day, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Melissa Hart had opened up about threats against judges generally and her experience specifically after she voted in December to find Trump constitutionally disqualified from being president — a decision Barrett’s court quickly overturned.

“The consequences of writing the decision,” Hart said, “were that my life was threatened, my children’s lives were threatened.”

“Judges live in fear,” she said. 

In less explicit terms, Barrett’s questioners alluded to the security risks of her position.

“You now have a security detail and you didn’t before. I’m wondering how this has changed your life,” said Eid.

“I think that that actually has been one of the most difficult things for me to adjust to because — let’s see. I went from one minute feeling like I could go anywhere, do anything, be anonymous if I wanted to,” Barrett said, “to kind of, in very short order, being in the care of the United States Marshals.”

Asked to give advice to lower court judges, Barrett invited them to “let us know when you think we ought to intervene” — as two 10th Circuit judges did recently in calling on the Supreme Court to revisit its longstanding exception to the constitutional right of a criminal jury trial.

“A big part of what we’re trying to do is to make the law clear and to make sure it’s uniform, to resolve circuit splits,” Barrett said. “So when, say, the 10th Circuit is struggling with implementing some doctrine or some statute that you think is not clear and you think it would be helpful for us, I think it would be helpful in an opinion to let us know that.”

Barrett observed the Supreme Court’s general practice is to wait until multiple courts have analyzed an issue in depth because “we only get one crack at it.” She added that despite her time teaching constitutional law and clerking on the Supreme Court, she had a new understanding “for the reasons why things are glossed over or swept under the rug” in opinions.

“That’s not sloppiness, usually. That’s because there was a reason. Either because we thought it was unnecessary to reach the issue in that case or maybe people couldn’t all agree on that point,” Barrett said. “When you’re doing something that’s a group project, as opposed to a concurrence or a dissent, you just can’t write it as forceful or as cleanly analytical.”

Finally, Barrett spoke at length about the role of civility in courts.

“The whole job is about being civil. And if you’re a district judge and you’re trying to encourage settlement — I mean, at every step of the way the job of the judge is to model dispute resolution. Not to model how to fight with one’s colleagues and exacerbate dispute resolution,” she said. “I think courts have the opportunity to build up civility in the larger culture.”

The Bench & Bar Conference will continue through Saturday at The Broadmoor luxury resort.