The notion of a 3-3-3 Supreme Court, suggesting three ideological blocs of justices, has gained attention in recent years. This model links three conservative justices (Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch), three liberals (Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson), and three supposed “institutionalists” (Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett), forming a middle group. However, recent analyses suggest that this view may be an oversimplification of the court’s dynamics, failing to capture the real substance of justices’ decision-making.
Researchers like Adam Feldman delve into Supreme Court data to uncover the intricacies of these judicial coalitions. Feldman’s investigation, spanning nearly two decades, indicates that the court mostly aligns itself into two clear groups: a liberal bloc and a conservative bloc.
The empirical evidence shows consistent patterns of voting that refute the idea of a stable third group. During the early years of Chief Justice Roberts’ tenure, from 2005 to 2008, the court exhibited strong tendencies towards a two-group alignment, with the conservative and liberal blocs demonstrating high rates of internal agreement in their decisions. The data argues against sustained three-way splits, like the suggested 3-3-3 structure. Even as personnel have changed, this binary division appears remarkably resilient over time, with high silhouette scores stemming from analyses supporting this observation.
Although some high-profile cases, particularly those concerning civil rights, have produced brief fractures within these blocs, these patterns have not persisted over a broader spectrum of cases. For example, certain rulings during the 2021–2023 terms briefly saw shifts; however, the analytics still depict the court as predominantly split between two ideological lines.
Ultimately, as the court progressed through the 2024 term, the consistency of a clear 6-3 division—between conservative and liberal births—continued unabated, further challenging the 3-3-3 hypothesis. The empirical analyses of voting behavior throughout various periods of the Roberts Court reinforce the view of a predominantly two-bloc system, dismissing the perception of a lasting “middle” as mere temporal aberrations fueled by specific cases.
Further exploration of this research can be accessed through more detailed articles, such as the one published on Legalytics, which provides a comprehensive breakdown of these coalition patterns.
For a full examination of this narrative and the corresponding data, visit the original article on SCOTUSblog.