The question of which Supreme Court cases truly matter has long intrigued legal professionals and scholars, especially given the perception of heightened partisanship within the court. However, an analysis reveals that the majority of the court’s decisions are often devoid of political divides, with roughly 42% of decisions in recent terms being unanimous, defying the typical conservative-liberal split (SCOTUSblog Stat Pack 2025).
Defining the “important” cases often leads analysts to consider decisions featured in prominent media or those decided along a predictable 6-3 ideological split. Yet, this post-hoc strategy overlooks potential cases of significance before decisions are handed down, leading to a circular debate over importance (Sarah Isgur Commentary). A more nuanced approach can be taken by examining the volume of amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” briefs submitted, which serve as a signal of perceived case relevance due to the effort and cost involved in filing them.
The number of amici, although not flawless for predicting significance due to variables like legal complexity or prevalent public interest issues such as civil liberties, does offer insights into the perceived weight of a case. Notably, cases from the most recent terms that garnered numerous submissions include United States v. Skrmetti, City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, which were issues tied to civil liberties and often fell on ideological lines.
However, when the panorama is expanded beyond the top few cases, the data shows a significant portion of decisions with substantial amicus support crossing ideological lines. Approximately 40% of these high-amici cases were determined unanimously, and 60% were not ideologically polarized, illustrating a divergence from the perceived partisan picture.
This analysis (SCOTUSblog) underscores the complexity in assessing case importance, challenging the narrative of a predominantly divided court and emphasizing the value of exploring multiple dimensions such as socio-political impact and the extent of involved stakeholder interest. It invites legal professionals to consider how these insights might inform their understanding of the court’s dynamics beyond the headlines.