The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently completed its 2024-25 term, providing a fresh perspective on the criminal side of its docket. Despite public focus often gravitating towards high-profile social issues and politically charged cases, a significant portion of the Court’s workload addresses criminal law matters. This term, approximately 40% of the 67 decisions released were related to criminal law, a figure consistent with trends observed over the past half-century.
A particularly intriguing aspect of this term was the prevalence of “pure” criminal law decisions, with 14 out of the 67 cases falling under this category. These cases tackled fundamental issues central to criminal prosecution and defense, revealing that the criminal docket is neither as sparse nor as conservative as public perception might suggest. Indeed, liberal justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, often found themselves on the winning side in these decisions, with over 70% of the “pure” criminal law cases resolved in favor of the defense or a liberal viewpoint. This pattern notably contrasts with the broader public narrative surrounding the Court’s conservative tilt this term, as highlighted by publications such as The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
The successful outcomes for defense interests can be attributed, in part, to a strategic selection of cases that appeal to centrist justices. Of the 14 cases under discussion, six were decided unanimously, and three resulted in per curiam, or unsigned, opinions. This unanimity suggests a cautious approach by the Court’s liberal justices, aiming to engage with cases that present less controversial or ideological divides. Justices such as Neil Gorsuch often sided with law enforcement, particularly when individual rights appeared compromised, showcasing a less predictable approach to criminal justice matters.
Moreover, the authorship of this term’s criminal law opinions was distributed among various justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, each authoring some decisions. Significantly, Justice Samuel Alito, known for his prosecutorial background, did not author any of the decisions falling in defense’s favor despite his active engagement through separate opinions in the form of concurrences or dissents in other cases.
This term highlights the need for closer scrutiny of the criminal docket, as these decisions provide critical insights into the Court’s orientation towards criminal justice issues. Such examinations challenge the perceived monolithic conservative influence and underscore the nuanced dynamics characterizing the current SCOTUS landscape. For more detailed analysis on these cases, refer to the full article on SCOTUSblog.