The Supreme Court is once again the target of critics who argue that the nine‑member bench is ideologically divided and should be restructured, a narrative amplified by outlets such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, which warned that the Court’s conservative majority “keeps choosing ideology over impartiality.”
Contrary to that portrayal, the Court’s own record from the last term demonstrates a high degree of consensus: more than 44% of opinions were unanimous, a slight increase from the previous year, and when 8‑1 and 7‑1 or 7‑2 rulings are added, the share of unanimous or nearly unanimous decisions rises to 62%.
Even broader, over 77% of the Court’s cases produced opinions without any ideological split, indicating that the majority of decisions are not driven by partisan lines but by shared legal reasoning among the justices.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, often singled out as a liberal outlier, was in the majority in 72% of the cases she participated in, and she aligned with conservative Justice Samuel Alito in 49% of those cases and with Justice Clarence Thomas in roughly half of them.
Recent rulings have also dealt setbacks to the Trump administration, including a decision rejecting a proposed change to mail‑in ballot procedures for the next election—a loss the former president labeled “a big loss for Republicans.” The vote on that case saw conservatives joining liberal colleagues.
Public opinion mirrors the statistical picture. A Marquette Law School poll released this week found the Court’s favorability at 47% versus 53% disfavor, a modest deficit that still outstrips the 10% favorable view of Congress, which Gallup reports as being disfavored by 86% of Americans.
Despite the data, political leaders and media commentators continue to push for court‑packing proposals, framing the institution as an obstacle to a “radical agenda” on the left. Such attacks ignore the Court’s functional independence and its role as a stabilizing constitutional pillar.
Looking ahead, the Court’s docket includes high‑profile cases on gun rights, parental rights, immigration, and climate change. While some of those may split along a 6‑3 ideological line, the historical trend suggests many will be resolved by consensus or mixed majorities, as in prior terms.
As the Court marks its 250th anniversary, the author, law professor Jonathan Turley, urges the public to celebrate the institution’s longevity and principled operation rather than succumb to demonization that threatens its legitimacy.