Supreme Court Decisions Show Higher Unanimity Than Critics Claim
Data suggests the Supreme Court is far from the ideologically divided institution critics portray, with a significant majority of rulings being unanimous or near-unanimous.
Recent commentary and polling have targeted the Supreme Court, characterizing it as an ideologically divided and biased institution. Critics, including some media outlets, have proclaimed that the Court's conservative majority "keeps choosing ideology over impartiality." However, an analysis of the Court's recent rulings indicates a higher degree of consensus than these criticisms suggest.
During the last term, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in over 44% of cases, a slight increase from the previous year. When adding cases with near-unanimous decisions—those with 8-1 or 7-1/7-2 splits—the rate of agreement rises to 62%. Furthermore, ideological divisions were absent in more than 77% of the Court's opinions. The emphasis on ideological splits, which appear in less than a quarter of cases, does not accurately reflect the overall decision-making process.
Even justices often perceived as strictly ideological have shown a willingness to align with colleagues across the ideological spectrum. For instance, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, while having the lowest percentage of majority opinions, was still part of the majority in 72% of cases. She agreed with Justice Samuel Alito in 49% of cases and with Justice Clarence Thomas in 50%.
The narrative of a deeply divided court also overlooks significant rulings that have gone against the Trump administration. These include losses in cases concerning birthright citizenship, mail-in ballots, tariffs, Federal Reserve Board appointments, and a personal defamation case involving President Trump. A recent decision rejecting a change to mail-in ballot rules ahead of an election was characterized by President Trump as "a big loss for Republicans."
In these instances, conservative justices have voted with their liberal colleagues, and justices such as Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch are often seen as swing votes in cases that create mixed majorities.
While the Court's popularity may be facing scrutiny, its favorability ratings, with 47% favor and 53% disfavor in a recent Marquette Law School poll, remain higher than those of Congress or the two major political parties. Congress faces an 86% disapproval rating, and Gallup reports only 10% of Americans hold a favorable view of it. President Trump's approval rating hovers around 40%.
Looking ahead, the current term is expected to address significant cases involving gun rights, parental rights, immigration, and climate change. While some of these may result in ideological divisions, many are anticipated to be decided with broad consensus, mirroring past years. The persistent criticism, however, may stem from a tendency to focus on contentious cases while overlooking the numerous unanimous or broadly agreed-upon decisions.
Arguments for packing the court are seen by some as part of a broader agenda to alter the constitutional system. The Court, in this view, is perceived as an impediment to enacting certain policy changes, leading to increased criticism and a hostile atmosphere toward the institution. Despite this, proponents argue the Court continues to function as an independent and principled body, deserving of celebration rather than condemnation, especially as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary.