Supreme Court's 2025-26 Term: A Look at Decisions and Alignments

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decisions, such as those concerning state bans on transgender females participating in school sports, can directly influence policies and legal challenges within California, a state with its own established laws and ongoing debates on these issues. The ruling on the president's authority to remove the head of the Federal Trade Commission could also indirectly affect federal regulatory oversight relevant to California's diverse industries.

WASHINGTON D.C. — The Supreme Court's 2025-26 term concluded with an increase in ideologically divided decisions, though its final week presented some complex alignments, according to an analysis of the court's actions. The term saw a rise in instances where the six Republican-appointed justices formed a majority with the three Democratic-appointed justices in dissent. Several measures indicate increased ideological division compared to the previous term. Decisions ruled by a 6-3 vote constituted 28.8% of the court's output this term, up from 15.2% last term. Ideological 6-3 splits accounted for 22.7% of all decisions, an increase from 9% the prior term. The liberal justices dissented together in 24.2% of cases, compared to 15% in the previous term. However, the term's closing week demonstrated some divergence from this broader pattern. During the second-to-last week, seven of nine decisions reflected 6-3 ideological splits. In the final week, four of seven decisions followed this pattern. Notably, all three liberal justices joined the majority in the three final-week decisions that deviated from the ideological 6-3 alignment. _Trump v. Barbara_, a birthright citizenship case, presented a prominent example. While the outcome was anticipated, the justice alignment was not. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the court's opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Brett Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and dissented in part, while Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. This decision placed the liberal justices within the majority. Other late-term outcomes followed more predictable ideological lines. In _West Virginia v. B.P.J._ and _Little v. Hecox_, the court addressed state bans on transgender females participating in school sports. These decisions aligned with prior patterns in transgender-related cases. _Trump v. Slaughter_, concerning the president's authority to remove the head of the Federal Trade Commission, resulted in the major overruling of the 1935 precedent, _Humphrey’s Executor v. United States_. The court had previously narrowed _Humphrey's Executor_, and _Slaughter_ formalized those developments. Some high-profile cases resulted in losses for the Trump administration or its supported policies. The administration lost in _Learning Resources v. Trump_, a tariffs case, and in _Barbara_. In _Trump v. Cook_, the court rejected a presidential effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook by a 5-4 vote. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, which included Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett dissented. Similarly, in _Watson v. Republican National Committee_, concerning postmarked ballots received after election day, the court rejected a position advocated by the U.S. solicitor general and supported by the Trump administration. The majority included Roberts, Barrett, and the three liberal justices. Justice-level data indicates a court with a conservative center, but not always operating along purely ideological lines in major cases. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh were in the majority most often, both at 95%. Justice Barrett followed at 92%. These figures were consistent with the previous term. Justice Jackson remained the justice least often in the majority, participating in 67% of overall majorities this term and 41% in non-unanimous cases. This compares to last term, when she was in 72% of overall majorities and 51% of non-unanimous cases. The court's opinion output remained consistent across the two terms. Last term produced 165 total opinions, while this term produced 164. Unanimity in decisions saw a slight increase to 44% this term, up from 42.4% last term. Agreement data showed both stability and subtle shifts. This term, Roberts-Kavanaugh, Thomas-Alito, Sotomayor-Kagan, and Sotomayor-Jackson all shared the highest overall agreement rate at 94%. In closely divided cases, Sotomayor and Jackson agreed 100% of the time, the only pair to do so. Writing patterns continued tendencies from the previous term. Justice Thomas authored the most total opinions, 28, and the most concurrences, 15. Justice Jackson wrote the most dissents, 10. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the fewest total opinions, authoring six majority opinions. The length of individual opinions diversified significantly. Justice Thomas's dissent in _Barbara_ this term reached approximately 29,400 words, compared to his 14,200-word dissent in _Glossip v. Oklahoma_ last term. This term's five longest opinions included four dissents and one concurrence, contrasting with last term's three majority opinions and two dissents among its longest. _Barbara_ was the longest total decision this term at 60,400 words, surpassing _CASA_ from last term, which was 35,200 words. Timing between oral argument and opinion release also shifted. Justice Barrett held the longest average time at 130.71 days, narrowly exceeding Justice Gorsuch’s 130.57 days. _Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections_ had the longest lag from argument to decision at 226 days. _Hikma v. Amarin_ was the quickest signed decision, issued 37 days after argument. Unlike last term, when the five quickest decisions were per curiam, this term’s five quickest argued-case decisions were all signed opinions. Overall, the term demonstrated increased polarization in 6-3 votes and ideological splits. However, the final week illustrated more varied alignments, with liberal justices joining majorities in several high-profile cases.