Supreme Court Alliances Show Shifting Majority and Dissent Patterns

Why it matters locally: The evolving alliances and voting patterns on the Supreme Court could impact Michigan residents through future decisions on federal policies affecting environmental regulations, voting rights, and criminal justice, which are areas where cross-ideological alignments have been observed.

---

WASHINGTON – An examination of Supreme Court voting behavior across the 2022-23 through 2025-26 terms indicates evolving dynamics in how justices form majorities and dissents. This period represents the tenure of all nine current justices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently commented on the "swing vote" label, stating she prefers to be seen as "independent, or just following the law." Historically, a swing justice occupied a consistent position near the court's ideological center. Scholars, including Neal Devins, suggest the current six-member conservative majority, established after Justice Anthony Kennedy's departure, is more cohesive than previous courts. Data from the 2025-26 term supports this cohesion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh each voted with the majority in 95% of cases. Justice Barrett voted with the majority in 92% of cases. Approximately one-fifth of decisions during this term split 6-3 along conventional ideological lines. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented together in nearly one-quarter of the court's cases. However, the current court also demonstrates various cross-ideological alignments. Chief Justice Roberts often constructs narrow majorities, frequently securing support from the court’s liberal justices. Justice Kavanaugh regularly provides the fifth vote in these coalitions. Justice Neil Gorsuch consistently joins liberal justices in dissent. Justice Jackson has cast several key crossover votes, although she largely aligns with Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Justice Barrett has provided pivotal majority votes and joined liberal colleagues in several notable dissents. ### Majority Formation Trends Chief Justice Roberts has been central to building majorities. Since Justice Jackson joined the court, Roberts participated in 12 cross-bloc 5-4 majorities. Each included the three liberal justices and two conservatives. Seven of these paired Roberts with Kavanaugh, four with Gorsuch, and one with Barrett. Examples include *Allen v. Milligan*, a Voting Rights Act case where Roberts authored the majority opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Kavanaugh. The same five justices formed the majority in *Cruz v. Arizona*, concerning Arizona’s capital-sentencing law. In *Williams v. Reed*, Kavanaugh wrote for Roberts and the three liberal justices. The 2025-26 term reinforced this pattern. In *Bowe v. United States*, Sotomayor wrote for Roberts, Kavanaugh, Kagan, and Jackson. Kavanaugh wrote for Roberts and the three liberal justices in *Pitchford v. Cain*. Roberts and Kavanaugh formed a similar coalition in *Trump v. Cook*. Barrett joined Roberts and the three liberal justices in *Watson v. Republican National Committee*. Justice Kavanaugh’s role often aligns with Roberts, appearing in seven of eight pivotal coalitions with the chief justice. Gorsuch has been Roberts' less frequent partner in these types of majorities. Justice Jackson’s pivotal majorities show a different pattern. In *Bittner v. United States*, she was the sole liberal in a majority with Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. She was also the only liberal in *Harrington v. Purdue Pharma*. In two other cases, Jackson and Sotomayor joined three conservative justices. Despite these instances, Jackson largely aligns with Sotomayor and Kagan in most divided cases. ### Dissenting Alliances Justice Gorsuch's cross-ideological dissents are a notable trend. He joined an ideologically opposite-bloc-led dissent in 8 of his 46 dissents during the analyzed period, a rate of 17.4%. In *Arizona v. Navajo Nation*, Gorsuch wrote for Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. The same four justices dissented in *Campos-Chaves v. Garland*. This group also aligned in *Riley v. Bondi* and *USPS v. Konan*. Gorsuch and Jackson also formed two-justice dissents in *Bufkin v. Collins*, *Delligatti v. United States*, and *Monsanto Company v. Durrell*. These cases spanned various legal areas. Justice Barrett has a smaller record of cross-bloc dissents, joining or writing for liberal-led dissents in *Fischer v. United States*, *Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency*, and *City and County of San Francisco v. EPA*, the latter two involving environmental regulations. Jackson, conversely, dissented 63 times across the four terms, with only two dissents alongside conservative colleagues. Most of her dissenting votes aligned with the liberal bloc. ### Recurring Judicial Pairings Roberts and Kagan constitute the most frequent cross-bloc pairing, voting together in 75 of 131 non-unanimous cases. Roberts and Kavanaugh are the leading pivotal pair, providing the two conservative crossover votes in seven of 14 liberal-led 5-4 majorities. Gorsuch and Jackson lead cross-bloc dissent pairings with nine shared dissents. Roberts and the three liberal justices appeared together in the majority in 53 non-unanimous cases and 12 of the 27 5–4 decisions. Gorsuch and the three liberal justices formed a recurring mixed dissent group. Barrett and the three liberal justices formed a smaller, issue-specific alliance in dissent. ### Coalition Drift Analysis of coalition drift, which measures how likely justices are to vote with ideological opposites over time, shows changes across terms. Justice Barrett demonstrates the most notable drift, though her overall dissent count remains small. Chief Justice Roberts' increase in joining cross-bloc coalitions primarily stems from his role in majorities. Justice Gorsuch's high score reflects his persistent dissent alliances and participation in Roberts-centered majorities. Justice Clarence Thomas recorded no pivotal votes or cross-bloc directional dissents from 2023-24 through 2025-26. Justice Alito recorded no change during these periods. Justice Jackson’s tenure is too short for a definitive trend. While some justices show a greater propensity to vote with ideological opposites, members within each bloc demonstrate distinct patterns. Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett engage in coalition drift. Justices Thomas and Alito rarely do so. The subject matter of cases influences these alignments. Roberts and Kavanaugh formed pivotal coalitions across areas such as voting rights, capital procedure, and presidential power. Gorsuch’s dissents with liberal justices often focus on tribal rights, immigration, and criminal law. Barrett’s liberal-aligned dissents concentrate in administrative and environmental disputes. Roberts anchors narrow majorities, and Kavanaugh is his frequent partner. Gorsuch provides the strongest dissent-side connection across blocs. Jackson has cast consequential crossover votes while largely aligning with the liberal bloc. Barrett’s record indicates an emerging dissent-side pattern.