Justice Amy Coney Barrett has emerged as an unexpected target of criticism from Donald Trump and some of his closest allies after breaking with the president on several high-profile Supreme Court cases this term, despite remaining one of the court’s most consistently conservative justices.

Barrett, 54, was appointed by Trump in 2020, cementing the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority.

She has played a central role in the court’s shift to the right, joining landmark rulings that curtailed abortion rights and affirmative action, expanded gun and religious freedoms, backed Republican-led congressional redistricting, and limited protections for LGBTQ+ people.

But several recent decisions have put her at odds with Trump.

On Monday, Barrett authored a 5-4 ruling allowing states to continue counting mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day but arriving afterward, concluding that federal law requires only that ballots be cast by Election Day.

“The election-day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose,” Barrett wrote.

She also joined rulings that rejected Trump’s sweeping global tariffs and blocked his executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship.

The decisions sparked a backlash from Trump allies.

Vice President JD Vance said Barrett “made a mistake” in the birthright citizenship case.

Conservative commentator Megyn Kelly called Barrett “a turncoat,” accusing her of “constantly siding with the left.”

Mike Davis, a Trump ally and founder of the conservative Article III Project, went further, calling Barrett “a disaster for the Supreme Court” and saying she should resign.

Trump himself criticized Barrett after the tariffs ruling, calling the decision an “embarrassment to their families,” referring to Barrett and fellow Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch. Following the mail ballot decision, he lamented what he called a “tremendous loss.”

Despite the criticism, legal scholars say the portrayal of Barrett as drifting left is misleading.

“To expect any justice to always vote the way that we wish things were, it’s just complete fantasy,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a Vanderbilt University law professor who clerked for the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

In 13 major cases involving Trump or Republican-backed priorities this term, Barrett sided with conservatives in 10 and broke with them in only three.

She voted to allow Trump to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, supported Republican challenges to campaign finance restrictions, backed efforts to weaken a key Voting Rights Act provision, and joined rulings allowing the administration to rescind protections for hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants while pursuing a tougher asylum policy.

Barrett also voted to uphold state laws banning transgender girls from competing on female sports teams and joined decisions expanding Second Amendment protections, including rulings striking down a Hawaii handgun restriction and limiting enforcement of a federal law barring certain drug users from possessing firearms.

The three cases in which Barrett broke from Trump and Republican-backed positions involved tariffs, birthright citizenship, and mail-in ballots.

In the birthright citizenship case, Barrett joined Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s three liberal justices in concluding that Trump’s executive order conflicted with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to nearly everyone born in the United States.

Top White House adviser Stephen Miller accused Roberts and Barrett of “caving to the radical left.”

Barrett’s recent votes stand in contrast to remarks she made after her confirmation in 2020, when she pledged to remain independent.

“The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core I will do the job without fear or favor and do it independently of the political branches and of my own preferences,” she said during a White House ceremony with Trump standing behind her.

Even so, Barrett continues to align with the court’s conservative majority far more often than not.

University of Oklahoma law professor Michael Smith cautioned liberals against viewing her recent rulings as evidence of a broader ideological shift.

“Do not put your hope in Justice Barrett,” Smith said. “She is very much on board with the program of the conservative justices. There is very little reason to hold out hope that she will make much of a difference for liberal goals.”