During the 2024-25 term, the Supreme Court exhibited a significant degree of unity, with the justices agreeing 42% of the time in its Opinions of the Court. However, in the remaining 58% of cases where unanimity was not achieved, the dissents offered notable critiques and insights into the justices’ differing perspectives.
Among the more critical dissenting opinions, Justice Neil Gorsuch stood out in the case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch. Gorsuch diverged from the majority view, expressing concerns about the power dynamics favoring the IRS, suggesting it could lead to the agency retaining more taxpayer money than appropriate.
Another case that prompted vigorous dissent was Gutierrez v. Saenz, where Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito criticized the majority for exacerbating delays in capital litigation. Alito’s principal dissent challenged the majority’s rendition of legal precedent and factual analysis in letting Rubin Gutierrez’s claims progress.
The environmental regulation case, Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA, also fostered disagreement, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasizing the perceived favoritism towards resource-rich plaintiffs in federal courts.
In Trump v. CASA, Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a fervent dissent accusing the majority of empowering the executive branch at the judiciary’s expense. Her remarks highlighted concerns over the decision’s ramifications for justice and constitutional rights.
The case of United States v. Skrmetti drew sharp commentary from Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan regarding the upholding of restrictions on transgender minors’ access to certain medical treatments.
The term’s most intense dissents were arguably exemplified by Sotomayor’s response in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., where she penned a vehement objection against decisions purportedly endangering human rights without sufficient deliberation.
Different justices emerged as vocal dissidents, with Jackson registering the highest number of dissents at ten during the term, while Thomas, despite frequently aligning with the majority, also made his dissenting voice heard across a range of cases. Chief Justice John Roberts, conversely, maintained an unbroken streak of agreement, emphasizing a more consensus-driven approach.
You can read in detail about these dissents and the dynamics of the court on SCOTUSblog.