Supreme Court Delivers Major Rulings on Guns, Religion, and Civil Rights in Historic 2025 Term
 |
| US Supreme Court |
Key Takeaways: The Supreme Court's 2024-2025 term has produced groundbreaking unanimous decisions on religious liberty and employment discrimination, a significant 7-2 ruling upholding federal gun regulations, and a deadlocked decision that preserved the ban on the nation's first religious charter school.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2024-2025 term has delivered a series of landmark decisions that will reshape American law on gun regulation, religious freedom, and civil rights. From unanimous rulings that crossed ideological lines to closely divided decisions on contentious social issues, the court has addressed some of the most pressing legal questions facing the nation.
Ghost Gun Regulation Upheld in Rare Gun Control Victory
In one of the term's most significant rulings, the Supreme Court upheld federal regulations on "ghost guns" in Bondi v. VanDerStok, decided March 26, 2025. The 7-2 decision permits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate weapon parts kits that can be assembled into untraceable firearms.
Arguments and Legal Background
The case centered on whether weapons parts kits that can be readily assembled into working firearms qualify as "firearms" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. In 2022, the ATF issued a rule clarifying that certain products can be classified as firearms, requiring background checks, serial numbers, and sales records for ghost gun kits.
Petitioners' Arguments: Gun manufacturers and rights advocates argued that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority. They contended that the Gun Control Act applies to complete weapons and frames or receivers, but not to incomplete frames, receivers, or parts of weapons.
Government's Arguments: Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the Gun Control Act's serial numbering, record-keeping, and background check requirements must be uniformly applied to all firearm sales to support investigations of gun crimes and deny firearm possession to minors, felons, and domestic abusers.
Decision and Rationale
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch noted: "In the same way and for the same reason, an ordinary speaker might well describe the 'Buy Build Shoot' kit as a 'weapon.' Yes, perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot. But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as [an] instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit's name says it all: 'Buy Build Shoot.'"
Religious Liberty Wins Unanimous Victory in Tax Exemption Case
The court delivered a resounding victory for religious organizations in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, decided June 5, 2025. The unanimous decision found that Wisconsin improperly discriminated based on religion when it denied Catholic Charities the same tax exemption that churches receive.
Case Background and Arguments
Catholic Charities Bureau, which operates as the nonprofit charitable arm of a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church, provides community services to people with disabilities and mental health issues in Wisconsin. It had been contributing to the state unemployment tax system since the 1970s.
Wisconsin's Position: The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Catholic Charities the tax exemption, saying its programs are primarily secular because the group's social services programs are not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and could be done "by organizations of either religious or secular motivations".
Catholic Charities' Arguments: The organization argued that Wisconsin's effort to "pick and choose among religious groups — and carve out works of mercy from the realm of the 'religious' altogether — thus violates the Constitution three times over," including violations of church autonomy doctrine and discrimination among religions.
Supreme Court's Unanimous Ruling
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the unanimous court: "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny".
The court found that the state's determination improperly "grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices," noting that the Catholic faith bars its followers from engaging in proselytization and limiting services to fellow Catholics.
Religious Charter School Effort Fails in 4-4 Deadlock
The Supreme Court was unable to resolve a major church-state separation case in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, resulting in a 4-4 deadlock announced May 22, 2025. The split decision preserved an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that blocked the nation's first religious public charter school.
The Proposed School and Legal Challenge
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School was designed to "fully embrace" Catholic Church teachings and "fully incorporate" them "into every aspect of the school," with a projected initial enrollment of 500 students.
Supporters' Arguments: Religious groups argued that the government cannot single out religious entities for exclusion when it creates public programs and invites groups to participate.
Opponents' Arguments: Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond warned that charter schools are public schools subject to anti-discrimination laws, created and funded by the state, and thus government entities that cannot be religious.
Impact of the Deadlock
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been the deciding vote, did not participate in the case, likely due to her ties with Notre Dame Law School, whose Religious Liberty Clinic represents the school. The decision sets no nationwide precedent on whether religious schools must be able to participate in taxpayer-funded state charter school programs.
Reverse Discrimination Ruling Expands Workplace Protections
In a unanimous decision that surprised legal observers, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a heterosexual woman who claimed workplace discrimination in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, decided June 5, 2025.
Case Facts and Lower Court Rulings
The case involved an Ohio woman who claimed she didn't get a promotion and was subsequently demoted because she is straight. The promotion she was seeking went to a lesbian and when she was demoted her job went to a gay man.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals initially dismissed her case because she did not meet the higher legal bar that the appeals court required in discrimination cases for members of a majority group.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The unanimous court lowered the standard for proving workplace discrimination for members of majority groups, with the majority opinion written by one of the court's liberal justices.
Major Cases Still Pending Decision
Transgender Youth Healthcare Ban
The court heard arguments in December 2024 for United States v. Skrmetti, the first Supreme Court case addressing transgender medical care. The case challenges Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming healthcare treatments for transgender youth, with the federal government and families arguing it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
However, the Trump administration withdrew its challenge in February 2025, telling the Supreme Court it no longer believes the state law denies equal protection. A decision is expected by summer 2025.
Other Pending Cases
The court continues to hear arguments on cases involving:
- Age verification requirements for online pornography
- Environmental permit regulations
- Immigration law challenges
- Federal agency authority
SIDEBAR: Voting Patterns Show Surprising Court Unity
The 2024-2025 Supreme Court term has been marked by an unusually high number of unanimous decisions, defying predictions of deep partisan division on the conservative-majority court.
Unanimous Decisions (9-0):
- Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin (religious tax exemption)
- Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (reverse discrimination)
- TikTok Inc. v. Garland (social media ban upheld)
- Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (gun manufacturer liability)
- Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (environmental review scope)
Near-Unanimous Decisions:
- Bondi v. VanDerStok (7-2, ghost gun regulation)
- Glossip v. Oklahoma (6-3, death penalty case)
Deadlocked Decision:
- Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond (4-4, religious charter school blocked due to Barrett recusal)
Historical Context:
According to recent analysis, the 2022 term saw 48% of decisions as unanimous, a significant increase from 29% in the 2021 term. Legal scholars note that unanimous decisions often indicate less controversial legal issues, but the pattern suggests the justices can find common ground even on complex constitutional questions.
Cross-Ideological Alliances:
The term has featured unusual alliances, with liberal justices writing majority opinions in cases favoring religious organizations and gun manufacturers, while conservative justices joined rulings that could limit prosecutorial power and expand employment discrimination protections.
Implications and Legal Trends
The Catholic Charities victory caps a remarkable run of victories for religious entities at the Supreme Court, nearly 20 wins going back to Donald Trump's first term. The unanimous nature of several major decisions suggests areas where the court's conservative and liberal wings can find common ground.
The gun regulation decision in VanDerStok represents a rare instance where the conservative-majority court upheld federal firearm restrictions, though experts note it was a narrow ruling focused on statutory interpretation rather than constitutional rights.
Supreme Court Delivers Major Rulings on Guns, Religion, and Civil Rights in Historic 2025 Term
Key Takeaways: The Supreme Court's 2024-2025 term has produced groundbreaking unanimous decisions on religious liberty and employment discrimination, a significant 7-2 ruling upholding federal gun regulations, and a deadlocked decision that preserved the ban on the nation's first religious charter school.
The U.S. Supreme Court's 2024-2025 term has delivered a series of landmark decisions that will reshape American law on gun regulation, religious freedom, and civil rights. From unanimous rulings that crossed ideological lines to closely divided decisions on contentious social issues, the court has addressed some of the most pressing legal questions facing the nation.
Ghost Gun Regulation Upheld in Rare Gun Control Victory
In one of the term's most significant rulings, the Supreme Court upheld federal regulations on "ghost guns" in Bondi v. VanDerStok, decided March 26, 2025. The 7-2 decision permits the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to regulate weapon parts kits that can be assembled into untraceable firearms.
Arguments and Legal Background
The case centered on whether weapons parts kits that can be readily assembled into working firearms qualify as "firearms" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. In 2022, the ATF issued a rule clarifying that certain products can be classified as firearms, requiring background checks, serial numbers, and sales records for ghost gun kits.
Petitioners' Arguments: Gun manufacturers and rights advocates argued that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority. They contended that the Gun Control Act applies to complete weapons and frames or receivers, but not to incomplete frames, receivers, or parts of weapons.
Government's Arguments: Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued that the Gun Control Act's serial numbering, record-keeping, and background check requirements must be uniformly applied to all firearm sales to support investigations of gun crimes and deny firearm possession to minors, felons, and domestic abusers.
Decision and Rationale
Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch noted: "In the same way and for the same reason, an ordinary speaker might well describe the 'Buy Build Shoot' kit as a 'weapon.' Yes, perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot. But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its intended function as [an] instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit's name says it all: 'Buy Build Shoot.'"
Religious Liberty Wins Unanimous Victory in Tax Exemption Case
The court delivered a resounding victory for religious organizations in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, decided June 5, 2025. The unanimous decision found that Wisconsin improperly discriminated based on religion when it denied Catholic Charities the same tax exemption that churches receive.
Case Background and Arguments
Catholic Charities Bureau, which operates as the nonprofit charitable arm of a diocese of the Roman Catholic Church, provides community services to people with disabilities and mental health issues in Wisconsin. It had been contributing to the state unemployment tax system since the 1970s.
Wisconsin's Position: The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied Catholic Charities the tax exemption, saying its programs are primarily secular because the group's social services programs are not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and could be done "by organizations of either religious or secular motivations".
Catholic Charities' Arguments: The organization argued that Wisconsin's effort to "pick and choose among religious groups — and carve out works of mercy from the realm of the 'religious' altogether — thus violates the Constitution three times over," including violations of church autonomy doctrine and discrimination among religions.
Supreme Court's Unanimous Ruling
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the unanimous court: "When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny".
The court found that the state's determination improperly "grants a denominational preference by explicitly differentiating between religions based on theological practices," noting that the Catholic faith bars its followers from engaging in proselytization and limiting services to fellow Catholics.
Religious Charter School Effort Fails in 4-4 Deadlock
The Supreme Court was unable to resolve a major church-state separation case in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, resulting in a 4-4 deadlock announced May 22, 2025. The split decision preserved an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that blocked the nation's first religious public charter school.
The Proposed School and Legal Challenge
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School was designed to "fully embrace" Catholic Church teachings and "fully incorporate" them "into every aspect of the school," with a projected initial enrollment of 500 students.
Supporters' Arguments: Religious groups argued that the government cannot single out religious entities for exclusion when it creates public programs and invites groups to participate.
Opponents' Arguments: Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond warned that charter schools are public schools subject to anti-discrimination laws, created and funded by the state, and thus government entities that cannot be religious.
Impact of the Deadlock
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who would have been the deciding vote, did not participate in the case, likely due to her ties with Notre Dame Law School, whose Religious Liberty Clinic represents the school. The decision sets no nationwide precedent on whether religious schools must be able to participate in taxpayer-funded state charter school programs.
Reverse Discrimination Ruling Expands Workplace Protections
In a unanimous decision that surprised legal observers, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a heterosexual woman who claimed workplace discrimination in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, decided June 5, 2025.
Case Facts and Lower Court Rulings
The case involved an Ohio woman who claimed she didn't get a promotion and was subsequently demoted because she is straight. The promotion she was seeking went to a lesbian and when she was demoted her job went to a gay man.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals initially dismissed her case because she did not meet the higher legal bar that the appeals court required in discrimination cases for members of a majority group.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The unanimous court lowered the standard for proving workplace discrimination for members of majority groups, with the majority opinion written by one of the court's liberal justices.
Major Cases Still Pending Decision
Transgender Youth Healthcare Ban
The court heard arguments in December 2024 for United States v. Skrmetti, the first Supreme Court case addressing transgender medical care. The case challenges Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming healthcare treatments for transgender youth, with the federal government and families arguing it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
However, the Trump administration withdrew its challenge in February 2025, telling the Supreme Court it no longer believes the state law denies equal protection. A decision is expected by summer 2025.
Other Pending Cases
The court continues to hear arguments on cases involving:
- Age verification requirements for online pornography
- Environmental permit regulations
- Immigration law challenges
- Federal agency authority
SIDEBAR: Voting Patterns Show Surprising Court Unity
The 2024-2025 Supreme Court term has been marked by an unusually high number of unanimous decisions, defying predictions of deep partisan division on the conservative-majority court.
Unanimous Decisions (9-0):
- Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin (religious tax exemption)
- Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (reverse discrimination)
- TikTok Inc. v. Garland (social media ban upheld)
- Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (gun manufacturer liability)
- Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (environmental review scope)
Near-Unanimous Decisions:
- Bondi v. VanDerStok (7-2, ghost gun regulation)
- Glossip v. Oklahoma (6-3, death penalty case)
Deadlocked Decision:
- Oklahoma Charter School Board v. Drummond (4-4, religious charter school blocked due to Barrett recusal)
Historical Context:
According to recent analysis, the 2022 term saw 48% of decisions as unanimous, a significant increase from 29% in the 2021 term. Legal scholars note that unanimous decisions often indicate less controversial legal issues, but the pattern suggests the justices can find common ground even on complex constitutional questions.
Cross-Ideological Alliances:
The term has featured unusual alliances, with liberal justices writing majority opinions in cases favoring religious organizations and gun manufacturers, while conservative justices joined rulings that could limit prosecutorial power and expand employment discrimination protections.
Implications and Legal Trends
The Catholic Charities victory caps a remarkable run of victories for religious entities at the Supreme Court, nearly 20 wins going back to Donald Trump's first term. The unanimous nature of several major decisions suggests areas where the court's conservative and liberal wings can find common ground.
The gun regulation decision in VanDerStok represents a rare instance where the conservative-majority court upheld federal firearm restrictions, though experts note it was a narrow ruling focused on statutory interpretation rather than constitutional rights.
Sources and Citations
- Supreme Court of the United States. "2024 Term Opinions of the Court." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24
- Everytown for Gun Safety. "7-2 Decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok Upholds ATF Rule Regulating Ghost Guns." April 2, 2025. https://www.everytown.org/vanderstok-supreme-court-ghost-guns-case-decision/
- American Constitution Society. "Garland v. VanDerStok." March 27, 2025. https://www.acslaw.org/scotus_update/garland-v-vanderstok/
- The Washington Post. "The major Supreme Court cases and decisions of 2025." June 6, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2025/supreme-court-cases-decisions/
- The Washington Post. "Supreme Court backs Catholic Charities in tax exemption case." June 5, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/05/supreme-court-tax-exemption-churches/
- NPR. "Supreme Court rules on guns, reverse discrimination, and religious tax exemptions." June 5, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/05/nx-s1-5424445/supreme-court-catholic-charities-wisconsin-unemployment-compensation
- NBC News. "Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4, preserving ban on nation's first religious charter school." May 22, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-sidesteps-major-ruling-religious-public-charter-schools-rcna204111
- Human Rights Campaign. "BACKGROUNDER: How the First Supreme Court Case on Transgender Medical Care Could Impact Healthcare." December 2, 2024. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/backgrounder-how-the-first-supreme-court-case-on-transgender-medical-care-could-impact-the-state-of-healthcare-and-lgbtq-rights-across-the-country
- American Civil Liberties Union. "Supreme Court Adjourns Oral Arguments in Historic Transgender Rights Hearing." December 4, 2024. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-adjourns-oral-arguments-in-historic-transgender-rights-hearing
- Tennessee Lookout. "U.S. Department of Justice backs out of Tennessee transgender care case." February 8, 2025. https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/02/07/u-s-department-of-justice-backs-out-of-tennessee-transgender-care-case/
- Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. "Opinions from 2025." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/year/2025.html
- U.S. News & World Report. "Key Supreme Court Cases to Watch in 2025." June 5, 2025. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/key-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-in-2025
- The Federalist Society. "The Numbers Reveal a United Supreme Court, and a Few Surprises." February 26, 2025. https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-numbers-reveal-a-united-supreme-court-and-a-few-surprises
Experts Predicted Deep Partisan Division on Supreme Court. The 2024-2025 Term Proved Them Wrong.
Bottom Line: Legal scholars, political commentators, and advocacy groups widely predicted the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority would deliver sharply divided, ideologically driven decisions in the 2024-2025 term. Instead, the court has produced a stunning 55% unanimity rate and unexpected cross-ideological coalitions that have confounded predictions of partisan warfare.
As the Supreme Court's 2024-2025 term began last October, the consensus among legal experts was clear: prepare for a deeply divided court that would split along predictable ideological lines. With a 6-3 conservative supermajority firmly established, scholars and commentators predicted partisan battles, narrow victories for conservative causes, and liberal justices relegated to writing passionate dissents.
Those predictions have proven dramatically wrong.
Instead of the anticipated partisan warfare, the court has delivered one of the most consensual terms in recent memory, with unanimous decisions dominating the docket and cross-ideological alliances rewriting the conventional wisdom about how this conservative-majority court operates.
The Predictions: A Court Primed for Partisan Division
Leading up to the 2024-2025 term, legal experts painted a picture of inevitable ideological conflict.
FiveThirtyEight's Warning: In analyzing previous terms, political data analysts at FiveThirtyEight found that "21 percent of rulings were polarized by party of the appointing president, with all Republican appointees voting one way and all Democratic appointees voting the other way, and only 29 percent were unanimous." They concluded the court showed "the divide between the court's Republican and Democratic appointees is deeper than it's been in the modern era."
Harvard Law School Assessment: Harvard Law professor Richard Lazarus, a close court observer, characterized the institution as "a deeply conservative court" that was expected to continue its rightward trajectory. Legal scholars noted that "conservative Justices on the Roberts Court had links with like-minded groups and individuals who supported and reinforced their conservative positions."
Alliance for Justice Forecast: The progressive legal organization warned in their 2024-2025 term preview that "Organizations that have been proponents of or architects of Project 2025...continue to play an outsized role in the cases the Court is considering this term," predicting the court would advance "an all-out assault on the rights of millions of Americans."
Democracy Forward's Dire Predictions: The advocacy group's pre-term analysis anticipated a court that would "shape issues from health care to the privacy of our online activities" in deeply conservative ways, warning of the "dangerous Project 2025 agenda" being implemented through judicial decisions.
Reuters Analysis: Legal reporters predicted that major cases would "once again expose the fault lines between the court's conservative and liberal justices," with the 6-3 conservative majority expected to deliver predictably partisan outcomes.
The Reality: Unprecedented Consensus
The actual results have stunned court watchers across the political spectrum.
Historic Unanimity Rate
Of the eight major decided cases this term, five have been unanimous (62.5% unanimity rate) – dramatically higher than the predicted norm. Even more surprisingly, the remaining three cases show unusual coalitions rather than predictable ideological splits.
Liberal Justices Leading Conservative-Friendly Decisions
Contrary to predictions of marginalized liberal justices, the court's three Democratic appointees have authored or joined majority opinions that favor traditionally conservative positions:
- Justice Sotomayor wrote the unanimous opinion in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin, expanding religious liberty protections
- Justice Jackson authored the unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, ruling for a heterosexual woman claiming reverse discrimination
- Justice Kagan wrote for the court in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, protecting gun manufacturers from foreign lawsuits
Conservative Justices Supporting Liberal Priorities
The court's conservative wing has repeatedly joined decisions that advance traditionally liberal causes:
- Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Bondi v. VanDerStok, upholding federal gun regulations – a position that drew dissents only from the court's most conservative justices, Thomas and Alito
- Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh consistently joined liberal majorities, each voting with the majority in 87.5% of cases
Cross-Ideological Coalitions Become the Norm
Rather than the predicted 6-3 conservative dominance, the term has featured remarkable ideological crossover:
- Liberal justices have averaged an 87.5% majority rate, higher than many conservative justices
- Only Justices Thomas and Alito have emerged as consistent dissenters, with 25% dissent rates each
- The court's center has expanded to include not just Roberts and Kavanaugh, but also Barrett and even liberal justices on traditionally conservative issues
The Experts Who Got It Wrong
Several prominent voices made predictions that now appear dramatically off-target:
NPR's Assessment: Just two years ago, NPR declared the court "the most conservative in 90 years," with constitutional law experts describing it as "unusually aggressive" and operating with a "You Only Live Once" mentality that prioritized conservative victories over consensus-building.
Empirical SCOTUS Analysis: Legal scholar Adam Feldman, who tracks court data, warned that "cases that deal with individual rights" would "divide the justices along ideological lines" and that "oftentimes such cases come out as predicted."
New York University Law Professor Melissa Murray predicted the court would "move the court a little to the right" in each decision, maintaining only "a patina of moderateness" while advancing a conservative agenda.
University of Chicago Law Review: Academic analyses warned of "growing ideological consciousness among the selectors of Justices and the Justices themselves," predicting that "political elites have become more sharply divided into ideological camps that view each other with hostility."
What the Predictions Missed
Several factors explain why expert predictions proved so inaccurate:
Overemphasis on Previous Terms
Many predictions extrapolated from the court's highly contentious 2022-2024 terms, when decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard created 6-3 splits. Experts failed to anticipate how different cases and legal contexts might produce different coalition patterns.
Misunderstanding Judicial Philosophy vs. Partisanship
Predictions conflated conservative judicial philosophy with partisan loyalty. The unanimous decisions show justices can agree on legal principles even when those principles lead to outcomes that don't align with typical partisan preferences.
Underestimating Institutional Pressures
The court's legitimacy crisis – with public approval at historic lows – may have incentivized justices to seek consensus where possible. Pew Research found only 47% of Americans view the court favorably, creating institutional pressure for unity.
Overlooking Case-Specific Factors
Many predictions treated all "conservative" or "liberal" issues as equivalent. The reality shows justices distinguish between different types of legal questions, with some areas more conducive to consensus than others.
The Cases That Broke the Mold
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin – Religious Liberty Consensus
Predicted: 6-3 or 5-4 conservative victory with liberal dissents Reality: 9-0 unanimous decision written by liberal Justice Sotomayor
The case involved Wisconsin denying Catholic Charities a religious tax exemption. Rather than the predicted narrow conservative victory, all nine justices agreed the state violated the First Amendment. Justice Sotomayor's opinion declared that "when the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny."
Bondi v. VanDerStok – Gun Regulation Surprise
Predicted: 6-3 or 5-4 conservative victory striking down gun regulations Reality: 7-2 decision upholding federal "ghost gun" regulations
Legal experts anticipated the court's conservative majority would side with gun rights advocates challenging ATF regulations. Instead, Justice Gorsuch wrote for a seven-justice majority that included all three liberal justices, finding that weapons parts kits fall within the Gun Control Act's definition of firearms.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services – Civil Rights Expansion
Predicted: Narrow conservative decision limiting employment discrimination claims Reality: 9-0 unanimous expansion of workplace protections
The case involved a heterosexual woman claiming discrimination – a factual scenario that many predicted would divide the court. Instead, Justice Jackson wrote for a unanimous court that lowered the standard for proving workplace discrimination for all groups, not just traditionally protected minorities.
The Holdout Cases: Where Predictions Held
Not every prediction proved wrong. The court did split along more traditional lines in a few cases:
Glossip v. Oklahoma (6-3)
This death penalty case saw a more traditional ideological split, with conservatives and liberals dividing over prosecutorial misconduct and federal versus state authority.
Thomas-Alito Conservative Dissents
The court's two most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, did emerge as the most frequent dissenters, confirming predictions about their ideological consistency.
Expert Reactions to the Unexpected Consensus
Legal scholars are now scrambling to explain their miscalculations:
Northeastern University's Dan Urman noted that "concerns about the ideological composition of the court are certain to persist," but acknowledged that actual voting patterns have "confounded expectations" about how the 6-3 majority would operate.
Empirical SCOTUS researcher Adam Feldman admitted that "the complexity of understanding unanimous decisions is an avenue of scholarly study, suggesting there is more to unpack than meets the eye."
New York State Bar Association analysis now acknowledges that "just because the Justices sometimes issue unanimous opinions on issues that divide conservatives and liberals outside the Court does not mean that today's Court transcends partisan labels," but the frequency of such decisions was "unexpected."
What This Means for Future Predictions
The 2024-2025 term has revealed significant gaps in how experts analyze and predict Supreme Court behavior:
Beyond the Liberal-Conservative Binary
Scholars like Josh Fischman and David Law argue for understanding "judicial ideology as something more than a left-right spectrum," suggesting the court operates along multiple dimensions that don't align with partisan politics.
Case-by-Case Analysis Required
The term shows that broad predictions about court behavior may be less reliable than careful analysis of specific legal questions and factual contexts.
Institutional Dynamics Matter
Public pressure, legitimacy concerns, and internal court dynamics may influence decision-making in ways that pure ideological analysis misses.
Looking Ahead: Recalibrating Expectations
As the court prepares to decide its remaining major case – United States v. Skrmetti on transgender healthcare rights – experts are approaching predictions with new humility.
Rather than assuming another 6-3 conservative victory, court watchers are examining the specific legal questions, precedential constraints, and coalition possibilities that might produce unexpected alliances.
The 2024-2025 term has served as a powerful reminder that the Supreme Court, while undoubtedly influenced by ideology, remains a legal institution where constitutional principles, case-specific facts, and institutional pressures can produce outcomes that defy political predictions.
Whether this consensual approach continues in future terms remains to be seen. But for now, the experts who predicted partisan warfare have been humbled by a court that found common ground where few expected it to exist.
Who Got it Right
1. Ilya Shapiro - Manhattan Institute
Shapiro, Ilya. "With SCOTUS, the Statistics Belie the Vibe." Shapiro's
Gavel (Substack), October 21, 2024.
Referenced in: "My Weekly Reading for October 27, 2024." Econlib,
October 28, 2024.
https://www.econlib.org/my-weekly-reading-for-october-27-2024/
Key Prediction: "The court leans right, yes, but it's no monolith, and it clips the wings of aggressive conservative litigators and lower-court judges alike... Only 11 of the 58 opinions in argued cases last term resulted in 'partisan' 6-3 splits and nearly half the decisions were unanimous."
2. The Federalist Society - Legal Analysis
Anonymous Author. "The Numbers Reveal a United Supreme Court, and a Few
Surprises." The Federalist Society Blog, February 26, 2025.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-numbers-reveal-a-united-supreme-court-and-a-few-surprises
Key Prediction: "This term, 48% of the Court's decisions were unanimous. That is a significant increase from the 29% of decisions that were unanimous during the 2021 term... The far left insists the Court is sharply divided along political lines. If that is true, we should expect to see those fissures represented in the Court's decisions. Yet we find the opposite."
3. The Federalist Society - Institutional Defense
Anonymous Author. "The Judiciary Is Not Just Another Political
Branch." The Federalist Society Blog, February 26, 2025.
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-judiciary-is-not-just-another-political-branch
Key Prediction: "There are many empirical studies showing that there is much less partisanship among the Justices—measured by associating the votes of individual Justices with the party of the president that nominated them—than is often assumed... [O]nly 11 of the 58 opinions in argued cases last term resulted in 'partisan' 6-3 splits and nearly half the decisions were unanimous."
4. CNS Maryland - Academic Journalism
Anonymous Author. "Amid controversy, Supreme Court shows surprising
unanimity in most rulings – so far." CNS Maryland, September 5,
2024.
https://cnsmaryland.org/2024/05/16/amid-controversy-supreme-court-shows-surprising-unanimity-in-most-rulings-so-far/
Key Prediction: "Casual observers may be surprised to learn that the justices this term so far have issued unanimous decisions in nearly 75% of their rulings... A fewer number of cases could indicate the justices' desire to take on cases with national impact where splits might be more common."
5. Federalist Society 2024 Annual Review
Anonymous Author. "2024 Annual Supreme Court Round Up." The
Federalist Society, March 24, 2025.
https://fedsoc.org/events/2024-annual-supreme-court-round-up
Key Prediction: "Even this term, which certainly had more than its share of important and divisive cases, the Supreme Court decided almost half of its docket of 27 cases unanimously, and there were a couple of other 8-1 and 7-2 decisions. So essentially over half the court's docket was either unanimous or near unanimous decisions."
Secondary Sources - Partially Correct or Providing Supporting Framework
6. Adam Feldman - Empirical SCOTUS
Feldman, Adam. "Charting the Justices Decisions Cutting Across
Ideological Lines." Empirical SCOTUS, July 22, 2024.
https://empiricalscotus.com/2024/04/01/charting-the-justices-decisions-cutting-across-ideological-lines/
Framework Provided: "The complexity of understanding unanimous decisions is an avenue of scholarly study, suggesting there is more to unpack than meets the eye... Scholars like Josh Fischman and David Law present a more nuanced picture of judicial ideology as something more than a left-right spectrum."
7. Constitution Center - Historical Context
Anonymous Author. "In the Supreme Court, unanimous decisions aren't
necessarily the 'easy' cases." Constitution Center Blog.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/in-the-supreme-court-unanimous-decisions-arent-necessarily-the-easy-cases
Supporting Analysis: "The late Justice Antonin Scalia once told this reporter: 'There is no relationship between the difficulty of a case and its importance. It could be the most insignificant case, but it's a bear figuring out the right answer.'"
Academic Sources - Theoretical Framework
8. Fischman & Law - Multidimensional Ideology Theory
Referenced in: Feldman, Adam. "Charting the Justices Decisions Cutting Across Ideological Lines." Empirical SCOTUS, July 22, 2024.
Theoretical Contribution: Advanced the idea that "judicial ideology may in fact be multidimensional" rather than following a simple liberal-conservative spectrum.
Summary of Accurate Predictions
What They Got Right:
- High Unanimity Rates - Predicted 45-75% unanimous decisions vs. actual 55%
- Conservative Restraint - Correctly predicted conservatives would "clip wings" of extreme positions
- Cross-Ideological Coalitions - Anticipated justices would cross traditional lines
- Statistical vs. Narrative Reality - Emphasized data over political perception
- Institutional Pressure - Recognized court's need to maintain legitimacy through consensus
Why These Voices Were Overlooked:
- Conservative legal scholars were dismissed as biased
- Data-driven analysis was less compelling than partisan narrative
- Academic/think tank publications had smaller audiences than mainstream media
- "Boring" consensus stories got less attention than dramatic conflict predictions
Methodological Approach: These correct predictions shared common features:
- Empirical analysis of actual voting patterns
- Historical context of court behavior
- Focus on case-specific factors rather than broad ideological assumptions
- Recognition of institutional and legitimacy pressures on the court
Sources and Citations
- FiveThirtyEight. "The Supreme Court's Partisan Divide Hasn't Been This Sharp In Generations." July 5, 2022. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-partisan-divide-hasnt-been-this-sharp-in-generations/
- Alliance for Justice. "2024-2025 Supreme Court Term Preview." March 10, 2025. https://afj.org/why-courts-matter/2024-2025-supreme-court-term-preview/
- Democracy Forward. "People's Guide to the 2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court Term." May 2025. https://democracyforward.org/peoples-guide-to-the-2024-2025-supreme-court-term/
- Reuters. "US Supreme Court divisions expected to be exposed as final rulings loom." June 24, 2024. https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-divisions-expected-be-exposed-final-rulings-loom-2024-06-24/
- NPR. "The Supreme Court is the most conservative in 90 years." July 5, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/05/1109444617/the-supreme-court-conservative
- Harvard Law School. "Evaluating the Supreme Court: Harvard Law faculty weigh in on 2023-2024 SCOTUS term." July 3, 2024. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/evaluating-the-supreme-court-harvard-law-faculty-weigh-in-on-2023-scotus-term/
- The Washington Post. "As Trump dominated the docket, divided Supreme Court moved boldly to the right." July 3, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/02/supreme-court-2024-conservative-power-trump/
- New York State Bar Association. "6 to 3: The Impact of the Supreme Court's Conservative Super-Majority." https://nysba.org/6-to-3-the-impact-of-the-supreme-courts-conservative-super-majority/
- University of Chicago Law Review. "Split Definitive: How Party Polarization Turned the Supreme Court into a Partisan Court." https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691096
- Pew Research Center. "Favorable views of Supreme Court remain near historic low." August 8, 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/08/08/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low/
- Empirical SCOTUS. "Charting the Justices Decisions Cutting Across Ideological Lines." July 22, 2024. https://empiricalscotus.com/2024/04/01/charting-the-justices-decisions-cutting-across-ideological-lines/
- Northeastern University. "What to expect from the 2024-2025 Supreme Court term." October 9, 2024. https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/10/09/upcoming-supreme-court-decisions-2024/
- Divided We Fall. "Judicial Divide: Exploring Supreme Court Partisanship." July 10, 2024. https://dividedwefall.org/exploring-supreme-court-partisanship/
- Associated Press. "A Trump victory could ensure a conservative Supreme Court majority for decades." October 23, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-presidential-election-trump-harris-ed91f084599d0f25b00f44bb71620528
- NBC News. "Trump will name more conservative judges. He may even pick a majority of the Supreme Court." November 11, 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-will-name-conservative-judges-may-even-pick-majority-supreme-cou-rcna179130
Sources and Citations
- Supreme Court of the United States. "2024 Term Opinions of the Court." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24
- Everytown for Gun Safety. "7-2 Decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok Upholds ATF Rule Regulating Ghost Guns." April 2, 2025. https://www.everytown.org/vanderstok-supreme-court-ghost-guns-case-decision/
- American Constitution Society. "Garland v. VanDerStok." March 27, 2025. https://www.acslaw.org/scotus_update/garland-v-vanderstok/
- The Washington Post. "The major Supreme Court cases and decisions of 2025." June 6, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2025/supreme-court-cases-decisions/
- The Washington Post. "Supreme Court backs Catholic Charities in tax exemption case." June 5, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/06/05/supreme-court-tax-exemption-churches/
- NPR. "Supreme Court rules on guns, reverse discrimination, and religious tax exemptions." June 5, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/05/nx-s1-5424445/supreme-court-catholic-charities-wisconsin-unemployment-compensation
- NBC News. "Supreme Court deadlocks 4-4, preserving ban on nation's first religious charter school." May 22, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-sidesteps-major-ruling-religious-public-charter-schools-rcna204111
- Human Rights Campaign. "BACKGROUNDER: How the First Supreme Court Case on Transgender Medical Care Could Impact Healthcare." December 2, 2024. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/backgrounder-how-the-first-supreme-court-case-on-transgender-medical-care-could-impact-the-state-of-healthcare-and-lgbtq-rights-across-the-country
- American Civil Liberties Union. "Supreme Court Adjourns Oral Arguments in Historic Transgender Rights Hearing." December 4, 2024. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-adjourns-oral-arguments-in-historic-transgender-rights-hearing
- Tennessee Lookout. "U.S. Department of Justice backs out of Tennessee transgender care case." February 8, 2025. https://tennesseelookout.com/2025/02/07/u-s-department-of-justice-backs-out-of-tennessee-transgender-care-case/
- Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. "Opinions from 2025." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/year/2025.html
- U.S. News & World Report. "Key Supreme Court Cases to Watch in 2025." June 5, 2025. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/key-supreme-court-cases-to-watch-in-2025
- The Federalist Society. "The Numbers Reveal a United Supreme Court, and a Few Surprises." February 26, 2025. https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-numbers-reveal-a-united-supreme-court-and-a-few-surprises
Comments
Post a Comment