Recent cases have been decided by large bi-partisan majorities, but often with multiple individual opinions, showing that Justices are agreeing on outcomes – just not how to get there.
While several major issues have faced the Supreme Court over the last few years, the current session of the Court has emphasized refining and clarifying existing decisions.
Of the Court’s 65 cases heard this term, fewer than 13 of those have been decided by slim majorities and fewer than 10 along ideological lines. Rather than large scale reevaluations of law and precedent, this term has thus far focused on clarifying existing rulings.
Concerning the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court used their 8-1 decision to give some clarity to their decision in Bruen striking down New York’s handgun laws. This decision, known as the Rahimi decision, joins their decision in Garland v. Cargill in helping to clarify the standards for interpreting the 2nd Amendment set in the Bruen case.
Yet Rahimi and Cargill both shed light on the ideological diversity represented in the current Court. With multiple justices opting to write their own opinions rather than simply signing off on one majority opinion. This reveals a more complex and nuanced ideological spread on the current court rather than a simple partisan divide.
Even in Rahimi, Thomas rooted his arguments in the judicial right to due process, something that Neil Gorsuch historically advocated for against liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Deference to the government on criminal justice issues is regularly a completely different judicial voting bloc than deference on regulatory issues.While cases such as the Dobbs abortion case tend to grab headlines, the truth is more complex and more nuanced. The overwhelming number of cases decided by clear and politically diverse majorities is a reminder that judicial philosophy is quite different from partisan policy. Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who spent her career as a vocal member of the liberal bloc thought Roe v. Wade was decided correctly, but for completely wrong legal reasoning.
