Supreme Court Issued Unanimous or Near-Unanimous Rulings in 62% of Cases, Undercutting Claims of Constant Ideological Sp
Coveragetap to expand ▾Spectrum: Right Only🌍US: 1
- An additional roughly 11% of opinions were 8-1 and about 6% were 7-1 or 7-2, bringing unanimous or nearly unanimous decisions to 62% (per nypost.com).
- In over 77% of cases, there was no ideological split in the resulting opinions (per nypost.com).
- Ideological splits were found in fewer than a quarter of cases (per nypost.com).
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was in the majority in 72% of cases last term, the lowest percentage among the justices reported (per nypost.com).
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with Justice Samuel Alito in 49% of cases and with Justice Clarence Thomas in 50% of cases (per nypost.com).
An analysis published by the New York Post finds the Supreme Court produced unanimous or nearly unanimous decisions in 62% of its cases last term, with fully unanimous opinions exceeding 44%.
The Post adds that another roughly 11% of opinions were 8-1 and about 6% were 7-1 or 7-2, and it uses those figures to argue that ideological splits appeared in under a quarter of cases (per nypost.com).
Critics and some media outlets have framed the Court as deeply ideological and institutionally damaged; the Post counters that the voting record undermines claims of a consistently ideologically split bench (per nypost.com).
The Post’s breakdown also highlights individual alignment statistics: it reports that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority in 72% of cases, the lowest majority rate among the justices, and that she agreed with Justice Samuel Alito in 49% of cases and with Justice Clarence Thomas in 50% (per nypost.com).
Those numbers complicate simple partisan narratives by showing cross-ideological agreement in many decisions, though the Post does not provide a case-by-case account tying those agreements to issue areas or doctrinal lines (per nypost.com).
The paper frames its findings as a corrective to commentary describing the Court as uniformly ruled by ideology, arguing numerical voting patterns show consensus far more often than headlines suggest (per nypost.com).
Readers should note this brief relies on a single outlet’s analysis and that the Post itself emphasizes the data as rebuttal to left-leaning critiques of the Court’s impartiality (per nypost.com).
- Concrete costs fall on litigants and institutions when public confidence in the Court erodes: the New York Post’s figures show 62% unanimous or near-unanimous rulings, suggesting perceived bias may be driven more by coverage than by voting patterns (per nypost.com).
- Citizens who follow Court legitimacy debates — including voters and legal professionals — bear the political cost if narratives of permanent ideological split persist despite widespread agreement in decisions (per nypost.com).
- Justices themselves benefit from strong consensus rates because high unanimity reduces the appearance of partisan decisionmaking; the Post’s data shows frequent cross-ideological agreement, including between Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas (per nypost.com).
- Whether the Supreme Court’s next term repeats a similar unanimity rate (compare unanimous and near-unanimous percentages reported at the term’s end).
- How often individual justices’ majority-join rates change — for example, whether Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s majority rate moves from the reported 72% in subsequent terms (per nypost.com).
- Whether major outlets that have criticized the Court adjust their framing when post-term statistical breakdowns (like unanimous and near-unanimous percentages) are published.
- The New York Post frames unanimous and near-unanimous voting rates as evidence that the Court is not consistently ideologically split; left-leaning outlets are described by the Post as emphasizing unpopularity and ideological behavior without matching voting data (per nypost.com).
- No outlet in this source pack disputes the Post’s percentages, but alternative analyses that might categorize 'ideological split' differently are not present in the package (per nypost.com).
- No source here breaks down unanimity by issue area (e.g., criminal law, administrative law) to show where consensus occurs; that omission limits understanding of whether agreement clusters by topic (no source provided).
- No source here provides case-by-case citations to verify which majorities produced the cited percentages, leaving the underlying dataset and methodology unshown (no source provided).
- No source mentions how public-opinion polls cited by critics map onto the Court’s voting records, so links between popularity metrics and voting behavior are not documented here (no source provided).
- No source references any academic or nonpartisan statistical replication of the Post’s counts to validate the figures (no source provided).
- All numeric figures in this package come from the New York Post: unanimous >44%; 8-1 ~11%; 7-1/7-2 ~6%; unanimous or nearly unanimous = 62%; no ideological split in over 77% of cases; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson majority-join rate = 72% (per nypost.com).
- The Post presents the voting statistics as a corrective to criticism of the Court; there is no alternate source attributing causation of public opinion to specific events or rulings in this package (per nypost.com).
- The Post attributes the claim that the Court is 'biased' to left-leaning outlets like the Philadelphia Inquirer and unnamed polls but does not cite a specific poll methodology in this piece (per nypost.com).