The 1 issue that hardens the Supreme Court's ideological split


The Supreme Court isn't so ideologically scrambled, after all.
Justices handed down two decisions Thursday morning, on the final day of the court's term — one upholding a pair of Arizona election laws that challengers said discriminated against minorities, and another striking down a California policy requiring charities and nonprofits to disclose their major donors. In both cases, the split was identical: The court's six Republican-appointed justices were in the majority, and its three Democratic-appointed justices dissented.
Such partisan divisions were expected when then-President Donald Trump last year appointed Amy Coney Barrett to the high court and cemented a conservative majority. During her first term, though, the court has produced some unexpected results. It handed down more unanimous decisions than it had in years, and came up with a surprising 7-2 decision that preserved Obamacare. A few observers suggested there might actually be a 3-3-3 ideological split among justices, and some conservatives made the case that liberal fears of a Republican supermajority on the court had been overblown — the three Trump-appointed justices, National Review's Jim Geraghty wrote Tuesday, "could help create a less intensely divided Court."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Perhaps not. The split in Thursday's rulings was stark and predictable. What made them different from the other cases this term? The topic at hand was electoral power. The Arizona laws were openly designed to give the GOP an edge in that state's elections, while the California disclosure policy was challenged by conservative advocacy groups interested in keeping their financial backers in the shadows.
It makes sense that the court's ideological borders would reassert themselves in these cases. Probably the No. 1 issue dividing Republicans and Democrats these days is democracy itself — Democrats want more, and the GOP wants less, and in both cases take those positions out of electoral self-interest. "An abiding principle that unites the entire GOP from McConnell to Trump to Roberts: making things harder for voters and easier for donors," MSNBC's Chris Hayes observed after the court's verdicts were announced. On issues from health care to religious liberty and beyond, there is room for justices across the political spectrum to freelance. When it came to the future of America's elections, though, everybody fell in line.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
U.S. v. Skrmetti: Did the trans rights movement overreach?
Feature The Supreme Court upholds a Tennessee law that bans transgender care for minors, dealing a blow to trans rights
-
The last words and final moments of 40 presidents
The Explainer Some are eloquent quotes worthy of the holders of the highest office in the nation, and others... aren't
-
Supreme Court lets states ax Planned Parenthood funds
Speed Read The court ruled that Planned Parenthood cannot sue South Carolina over the state's effort to deny it funding
-
'If smoke can affect health early in life, it also can affect life's end'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
How Zohran Mamdani's NYC mayoral run will change the Democratic Party
Talking Points The candidate poses a challenge to the party's 'dinosaur wing'
-
Supreme Court clears third-country deportations
Speed Read The court allowed Trump to temporarily resume deporting migrants to countries they aren't from
-
Discrimination: Expanding the definition
Feature The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a straight woman who sued her gay boss for discrimination
-
Is Trump's military parade 'just a parade'?
Talking Point Critics see an 'echo of authoritarianism'