The Myth of a "Conservative" Supreme Court

The narrative that the U.S. Supreme Court is a monolithic "conservative" institution has become a rallying cry for critics, particularly from the political left, whenever a ruling does not align with their priorities. This characterization oversimplifies the court's dynamics and ignores the nuanced voting patterns of its justices. An honest examination reveals a court divided not into a conservative monolith but into a three-way split: three conservative justices, three centrists, and three left-leaning justices. This balance challenges the polarized rhetoric and demands a closer look at how justices actually vote, rather than who appointed them.

The conservative wing consists of Justices:

• Justice Clarence Thomas

• Justice Samuel Alito

• Justice Neil Gorsuch.

These justices often anchor decisions grounded in originalist or textualist interpretations of the Constitution.

The leftist wing includes Justices:

• Justice Elena Kagan

• Justice Sonia Sotomayor

• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

These justices frequently align with progressive legal perspectives.

The centrists:

• Chief Justice John Roberts

• Justice Brett Kavanaugh

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Who occupy a pivotal middle ground. Contrary to assumptions, their votes often defy the expectations tied to their appointing presidents, all of whom were Republicans.

The assumption that a Republican-appointed justice is inherently conservative is flawed. Data from the 2023-2024 term, compiled by SCOTUSblog, shows that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett sided with the court's liberal justices in several high-profile cases. For instance, in Moyle v. United States (2024), a case involving emergency abortion access, all three centrists joined Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson in a 6-3 decision to dismiss the case as improvidently granted, effectively preserving access to emergency care. Similarly, in Moore v. United States (2024), a tax case, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the liberal justices in a 7-2 ruling upholding the Mandatory Repatriation Tax, with Roberts also concurring in part. These cases illustrate that the centrists frequently break from the conservative wing, with Kavanaugh and Barrett siding with the liberal justices in approximately 30% of non-unanimous decisions last term, per SCOTUSblog's analysis.

This voting pattern frustrates conservatives who expected steadfast ideological alignment from Republican appointees. The centrists' tendency to prioritize pragmatic or narrow rulings over rigid ideology has led to disappointment among those who anticipated a reliably conservative court. For example, in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024), Barrett wrote the unanimous opinion rejecting a challenge to mifepristone access, a decision conservatives criticized as a missed opportunity to curb abortion rights. Roberts and Kavanaugh's votes in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) dissents did not preclude their later support for expanding LGBTQ+ protections in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), further highlighting their unpredictable leanings.

The focus on who appointed a justice obscures their judicial philosophy and voting record. Roberts, often described as an institutionalist, prioritizes the court's legitimacy and narrow rulings, as seen in his concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), where he sought a middle path rather than fully overturning Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh and Barrett, while conservative-leaning, have shown willingness to diverge from Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch in cases involving administrative law or statutory interpretation. The 2023-2024 term saw the court issue unanimous or near-unanimous decisions in over 50% of cases, per the Supreme Court’s own statistics, underscoring that ideological divides are not as stark as public discourse suggests.

Labeling the court as "conservative" distorts reality and fuels mistrust. Instead of fixating on political appointments, we should evaluate justices based on their rulings and reasoning. The current court reflects a spectrum of judicial philosophies, with centrists holding significant sway. This balance ensures no single ideology dominates, preserving the court's role as an impartial arbiter. To understand the Supreme Court, we must move beyond simplistic labels and engage with the complexity of its decisions.