The recently concluded Supreme Court term was in many ways our first comprehensive look into one of the most important legacies of Trump's presidency: his imprint upon the court.It is difficult to understand the full impact of Donald Trump's 6-3 conservative supermajority. This term had the highest number of unanimous rulings over the past three years. However, the court's last two major rulings were split along 6-3 ideological lines. This inconsistency could be due to divisions within the courts between conservative justices about how fast they should move and in which direction. The court is heading in a conservative direction and conservative justices are at the controls.Justice Brett Kavanaugh is the central court justice and can help you understand the rightward shift in the courts. This was once the position held by Chief Justice John Roberts. However, this years preliminary Martin Quinn scores, which are a prominent measure for justices ideology, suggests that Kavanaugh was this term's median justice, and not Roberts. The most striking thing about this is not Kavanaugh's position at the center, but the absence of daylight between Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch.This term's justices ideological scores can be interpreted as multiple median justices. Any split decision in which liberal justices are part the majority requires at least two conservative justices to vote with the liberals. Kavanaugh's position in the center of court does not suggest that he is becoming more liberal. Roberts and Kavanaugh are both estimated to have not moved much to the left compared to last year. Instead, Barrett's replacement of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has shifted the court's center and made it more conservative.The Martin-Quinn scores do not accurately reflect the ideology of justices. Research has shown that the court does not have a single median justice. Different issues are often brought before the court and attract different median justices.The reason Republicans are beginning to create their own climate agendaJosh Fischman, a University of Virginia law professor, said that the Supreme Court isn't as monolithic as people think.However, the court decisions of this term have been dominated by a conservative quad consisting of Roberts (Kavanaugh), Barrett, and Gorsuch. Kavanaugh was the majority in 97% of all cases and the majority in 95 percent of the divided cases. Roberts was not far behind. Roberts was the majority in 91 per cent of all cases, and in 84 per cent of divided cases. Barrett and Gorsuch were also in the majority in over 80 percent of divided cases. Another sign that the court is moving in the right direction is the fact that Justices Thomas and Alito were present in the majority 80 percent and 83 percent of cases, respectively. Despite their image as perennial dissenters, this is another indicator that the court has begun to move in the rightward direction. It was actually the three liberal justices that dissented the most during this term, which is not surprising given the court's composition.Kavanaugh is most frequently in the majority Share justices decisions in October 2020 term that fell among all cases by justice CASES Brett Kavanaugh 90.9 83.8 Amy coney Barrett 90.7 83.9 Neil Gorsuch 83.1 69.4 Clarence Thomas 8.3 64.9 Stephen Breyer 77.3 59.5 Elena Kagan 75.8 56.8 Sonia Sotomayor69.7 46.0 Barretts stats were based on 12 less cases as she was removed from cases before she joined the court. Source: Kal Golde, SCOTUSBLOGAlthough there was much hype about the 44 percent number of unanimously issued decisions, it wasn't really that uncommon. The average number of cases decided unanimously in the 10 previous terms (2010-19) was 47 percent. The chart below shows that the agreement rate between justices is quite telling. The three liberal justices tended to agree with each other more than any other justices. This was also true for the five conservative justices. Roberts and Kavanaugh are actually the two justices most in sync (they acted in the same manner in 94 percent)Related: It's getting harder for the Supreme Court to overturn voting restrictions Read more. Related: The Supreme Court Just Made It Harder To Overturn Voting Restrictions Read more.Barrett was also in lockstep with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch in 91% of the cases she participated in. Notable is the fact that Kavanaugh's first year on the court can be misleading. In Kavanaugh's first term, for example, he agreed with Justice Elena Kagan 70 percent, but in Kavanaughs second term, he agreed with Gorsuch 88 percent and Kagan 72 percent. This pattern has held up this past year.This is where Alito and Thomas can be seen earning their reputations of being the justices least likely not to agree with each other. They both agreed with Gorsuch (88 percent) this term. Alito also voted with the conservative justices, but Alito was more in line than Thomas. However, both conservative justices are notable for how rarely they agreed with liberal justices. This demonstrates how difficult some of the court's conservative members can be.What does this mean for the court as a whole? It is too early to determine how far Trump's conservative majority will shift the law in this country towards the right, as we stated at the beginning. We caution you not to confuse disagreements among conservative justices with disagreements over the court's direction. For example, Alitos dissents show frustration with the court's speed. However, a closer examination of some conservatives opinions reveals that even though they are on opposing sides to Thomas and Alito, they generally agree on the merits. Kavanaugh's opinion on the court's decision to keep the nationwide Centers for Disease Control and Preventions moratorium on evictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He voted for the majority opinion even though he believes the CDC exceeded their authority in issuing this moratorium. However, he said he didn't believe it was worth overturning it since it expires July 31. This is not a strong endorsement of the case's merits. Take Barrett on Fulton. She joined the majority opinion but gave a separate concurrence to Kavanaugh. Both suggested that they were open to overturning Employment Division v. Smith. This would drastically change the way courts assess laws that restrict religious groups.One caveat to the data is that justice ideology scores, or how well they agree with one another, do not account for the different cases that justices hear. This term, for example, many of the most high-profile cases still produced the expected 6-3 ideological split. The 1965 Voting Rights Act will no longer be enforceable. Union access to workplaces is restricted. There will be less oversight of certain political donations and disclosure requirements. There will be no restrictions on juvenile offenders receiving life sentences.The conservative supermajority of the court has only just begun to use its potential. It is just as important to decide what cases the justices will take on as how they rule. Many of the cases decided this term were made while Ginsburg was still on court. The court that is currently in power has already made the decision to address cases on abortion and gun rights next term. This may give us a better idea of how quickly and far the court will move law.FiveThirtyEightFiveThirtyEight
