The Supreme Court delivered fewer ideologically divided rulings in its most recent term than in last year’s, as the conservative majority found middle ground with the court’s liberal wing on several issues.
In fact, several of the much-watched legal disputes yielded more agreement between the justices from both wings of the court, even though the number of cases this term was similar to last year’s.
Adam Feldman, a Supreme Court scholar and creator of EmpiricalSCOTUS, noted that the justices issued five ideologically divided decisions in the 2022 term, compared to 14 such rulings in the 2021 session.
“Last term kind of proved a lot of people’s thinking correct — that having a 6-3 court can really push ideology,” he said. “This term, we saw a lot less of that.”
Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice, said that half of the major cases this term yielded liberal outcomes, pointing out that the justices sided with the Biden administration in saying red states couldn’t challenge its deportation policies in one of the key disputes for the feds this year.
“All of this tells us that the current Supreme Court is more centrist than it is right-wing, despite the left screaming otherwise,” Mr. Levey said.
Mr. Feldman noted that the justices’ shift to the center has occurred in the wake of criticism and declining public approval of the court over its landmark rulings last summer on abortion and gun rights.
In 2022, the high court overturned the national right to an abortion and sent the issue back to the states. Liberals were outraged after a draft opinion was leaked, sparking protests and even an assassination attempt on Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh by a California man.
The justices also struck down strict gun control laws that required a subjective reason — proving a proper need — for obtaining a concealed carry permit in New York. The ruling also prohibited other strict gun measures in a handful of states, angering liberals even more.
A Marquette Law School Poll conducted after those rulings were issued in June 2022 showed that public approval of the justices had fallen to 38% from 54% just four months earlier.
Mr. Feldman surmised that the liberal justices may be motivated to find a middle ground, knowing that the conservatives have the numbers to push an agenda.
The narrowing of the court’s ideological divide was evident in three highly watched cases this term involving voting rights, religious liberty and the independent legislature theory.
The justices rejected two arguments from GOP lawmakers, preserving part of the Voting Rights Act and ensuring a right to challenge election laws in state courts — as well as federal courts.
In a case involving Alabama’s congressional map, Republican officials told the high court to reject arguments from Black voters for a second majority Black district to be created, saying that would force the government to take race into account.
But in a 5-4 ruling, the justices ordered Alabama to adopt a congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts, reasoning that the current map violates the Voting Rights Act because it unfairly dilutes the power of the state’s Black residents.
Justice Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the three liberal justices in the majority in that decision.
Liberals had feared the conservative majority could roll back part of the Voting Rights Act. Similarly, they worried the conservative justices could rule in another election-related case that election laws could only be challenged in federal courts — not state courts as well.
The issue came to a head during COVID when many state officials and judges changed election laws in the wake of the pandemic without the approval of state lawmakers.
In Moore v. Harper, North Carolina Republicans had disputed the state’s highest court ruling their congressional map a partisan gerrymander and ordering a state-drawn map. They argued that only federal courts — not the state’s highest court — had jurisdiction over their election laws.
But the justices rejected that premise.
The 6-3 decision was not ideologically divided, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joining the three liberals in shooting down Republican lawmakers’ theory that the U.S. Constitution invested final say over election rules with “the legislature” of each state and that state courts must butt out.
They said elections are conducted under the federal and state constitutions, so state courts have a say.
In addition, a religious liberty dispute involving a Christian former postal worker requesting not to work on the Sabbath also drew a compromise between the left and right wings of the court.
Businesses that don’t want to accommodate religiously observant employees’ needs must show they would incur a “substantial” cost if they were to do so, the Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling.
The move updated a 1970s-era precedent that let some employers easily reject religion-based requests such as time off on the Sabbath — but it didn’t overturn the historic case entirely as some on the left had feared.
Elliot Mincberg, a senior fellow at People for the American Way, said the election and voting cases had aggressive political arguments, while disputes over affirmative action, LGBT rights and President Biden’s plan to forgive student debt all resulted in ideologically divided 6-3 rulings and were arguably the most high profile disputes eyed by court watchers.
“It’s clear that the 6-3 alignment remains very powerful, but particularly on some cases raising very partisan and aggressive legal claims, they don’t always stay together,” Mr. Mincberg said of the conservative justices.
⦁ Stephen Dinan contributed to this report.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.