The record shows the Supreme Court is not a partisan institution
The Record Shows the Supreme Court Is Not a Partisan Institution
The record shows the Supreme Court - Each year, as the Supreme Court prepares to enter its summer recess, it releases a series of rulings in June to clear its docket. These decisions are not only frequent but often center on issues that are high-profile and politically charged. Despite the public's tendency to frame the court as a partisan entity, the data suggests otherwise.
The recent surge in attention to the court’s rulings has sparked debates about its ideological alignment. For instance, decisions on birthright citizenship, the executive’s authority to appoint Federal Trade Commissioners, and state laws restricting transgender athletes in girls’ sports have become focal points of contention. Yet, regardless of the outcome, the justices consistently draw scrutiny for their perceived influence on partisan agendas.
Public skepticism of the court’s impartiality has grown, with recent Pew Research polls reinforcing the belief that it operates as a partisan institution. However, this perception may not fully capture the court’s actual functioning. Before reacting with alarm, it’s essential to examine the underlying patterns that challenge such conclusions.
A Closer Look at the Vote Breakdown
Consider the rulings issued on June 18, which highlight the court’s cross-partisan dynamics. On that day, the court delivered three decisions: U.S. v. Hemani, T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System, and Hunter v. U.S.. While Hemani—a case concerning the Second Amendment—generated significant media coverage, the other rulings often went unnoticed. This contrasts with the typical April or May decisions, which tend to be more contentious and headline-worthy.
The impression of the court’s ideological divisions is best captured by the summary of opinions at the end of the clerk’s syllabus, which details the authors of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. In Hemani, the justices issued a unanimous ruling in favor of the defendant, with Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion joined by six of his colleagues. Some justices added concurring statements to clarify or expand on the decision, while only Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan dissented from the majority opinion but concurred in the outcome.
This case exemplifies how justices can align across ideological lines even on politically significant matters. The same pattern appears in the other two decisions. In one, the court split 8-1, with Justice Thomas alone dissenting. In another, the majority was a 5-4 coalition that included both conservative and liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—while the dissenting bloc comprised Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Gorsuch, Kagan, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Such outcomes are not anomalies. The trend of cross-partisan voting has been consistent over recent terms. For example, the proportion of cases decided unanimously by the court has ranged between 50% and 70% in the past few years. Even justices who rarely aligned in the 2024 term, like Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson, found common ground in 53% of all cases.
Politics vs. Law: A Key Distinction
While partisanship is certainly present in the court, it is not the dominant feature of its operations. The justices may bring their political perspectives to the bench, but their primary role is to interpret the law, not to advance partisan goals. This distinction is crucial for understanding the court’s function in the broader legal framework.
It is easy to confuse the work of judges with that of politicians, especially when rulings have political implications. However, judges are bound by legal principles and precedents, which often transcend immediate political considerations. The court’s ability to produce rulings that blend ideological lines underscores its role as an impartial arbiter rather than a partisan actor.
For instance, the unanimous decision in Hemani illustrates how justices can unite on a matter of national importance without ideological compromise. The majority opinion, written by Gorsuch, reflected a consensus on the legal reasoning, even as some justices sought to emphasize additional points through concurring statements. This demonstrates that while political influence exists, it does not necessarily dictate the court’s decisions.
Moreover, the court’s reliance on legal standards rather than political narratives becomes evident in its routine operations. Cases decided in June, though sometimes politically salient, often lack the dramatic flair of earlier rulings. These decisions, while less publicized, reveal the court’s tendency to prioritize legal analysis over partisan posturing.
Political polarization has permeated Congress and the executive branch, but the Supreme Court remains a distinct entity. Its decisions, though sometimes controversial, are grounded in the constitutional framework. To dismiss the court as a partisan institution overlooks its consistent ability to balance diverse viewpoints and uphold the rule of law.
Why the Perception Persists
The public’s view of the court as partisan may stem from the prominence of its most politically divisive cases. When a ruling aligns with the interests of a particular party, it is often framed as evidence of the court’s bias. However, this narrative ignores the broader context of the court’s work, where cross-partisan coalitions are the norm rather than the exception.
Further, the media’s focus on high-profile decisions can skew public understanding. While Hemani received attention, the other rulings on June 18—T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System and Hunter v. U.S.—highlight how often the justices reach agreements on issues that might otherwise be seen as ideologically aligned. These cases, though less sensational, are indicative of the court’s operational consistency.
Matthew Brogdon, senior director of Utah Valley University’s Center for Constitutional Studies, argues that partisanship is not absent from the Supreme Court, but it is not the defining characteristic. The justices may occasionally act in ways that seem to favor partisan interests, but their ultimate goal remains the interpretation of the law. This nuanced approach helps preserve the court’s role as a constitutional check rather than a political tool.