The 2024-25 term of the U.S. Supreme Court continues the evolving story of the court under Chief Justice John Roberts, now in his 20th year at the helm. As documented by Adam Feldman’s Empirical SCOTUS series, this term highlights a new phase of conservative consolidation, characterized more by stability than by shifting dynamics. Once seen as a court with a fluid ideological center, the Roberts court has solidified into one defined by a conservative supermajority, casting long shadows over its liberal counterparts.
As history shows, earlier years of the Roberts court allowed for coalition-building solutions, with swing votes sometimes aligning with liberal justices to produce landmark decisions. This was exemplified by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s recurring role as a pivotal figure in close votes. However, the narrative shifted with the appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, forming a steadfast 6-3 conservative majority. Subsequently, the need for compromise receded, effectively entrenching the majority’s dominance.
In this term, the voices shaping the court’s decisions predominantly belonged to justices like Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Not only have they consistently found themselves in the majority, but their articulation through majority opinions has critically shaped doctrine and precedent. Noteworthy is Roberts’ intricate role as both an institutionalist and a central player in maintaining the court’s legitimacy. He, along with Kavanaugh and Barrett, exemplifies a nuanced approach to opinion authorship, finessed to signal stability and continuity without overt overreach.
The impact of these dynamics is visible in the shifting numbers. Since the conservative appointments, liberal justices have found their victories less frequent within significant cases, except for a rebound in this term, wherein they reached the majority in ten significant decisions despite persistent dissenting voices in others.
Furthermore, the trend towards fewer unanimous decisions, decreasing from 50% in 2022 to 42% in the current term, underscores the rise of ideological cohesion within the conservative bloc. Concurrences from Justices Gorsuch and Thomas signal personal constitutional philosophies and potential future shifts. Meanwhile, the liberal justices, led by dissenters like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, continue to craft opinions that narrate alternative legal visions attuned to long-term jurisprudence.
Challenges remain, particularly as the court navigates cases involving agency powers and civil liberties. Yet the stability of the current term, outlined not just by who prevails, but by who defines the court’s voice, reflects a matured Roberts court. It poses questions about future ideological fractures and how dissenting visions may eventually influence legislative or judicial realignments. The story captures a broader narrative of structure reigning over surprise in charting the trajectory of American constitutional law under the Roberts court.