The Supreme Court's Cultural Battles

Even as their overall case load decreases, the justices find themselves addressing an increasing number of cases linked to cultural issues favored by Republicans.

Key Insights

Traditionally, the Supreme Court was seen as a body principally engaged in technical legal analysis.

Over the decades, the Court certainly delivered landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. However, such profoundly political and culturally significant matters have historically constituted only a minor fragment of the Court's undertakings.

Today’s judicial landscape is different. The upcoming 2024-25 term alone could see the Court dismantling the remnants of the Voting Rights Act, sanctioning conversion therapy across the nation, allowing states to exclude transgender athletes, and significantly expanding executive power for Donald Trump over certain agencies, among other pivotal rulings.

The Current Focus on Cultural Issues

A major shift is evident with the present justices, where cultural topics such as religion, firearms, LGBTQ rights, and abortion dominate. While these themes encompass many of the cultural divisions in U.S. politics, they notably align with the cultural concerns of the Republican Party. The current Court, with its 6-3 GOP majority, now deliberates twice as many such cases as it did during the Obama years.

During Barack Obama’s presidency, the Supreme Court tackled about a dozen relevant cases. Presently, since Republicans acquired a six-justice dominance, the Court has handled 18 cases per the same parameters—a significant uptick in its cultural arbitration.

Although fewer cases are taken on nowadays, the justices are holding hearings on an increasing number of cases with considerable political consequences. A noteworthy change given the historical decrease in the total number of cases. Between the historical and the present, Chief Justice Roberts' past quip from his Reagan days about the Court hearing 150 cases per term is far removed from reality.

Recently, the Republican-leaning majority seems to be checking off precedents they believe are inconsistent with GOP ideals, keen to overturn these older decisions. This era has already seen the revocation of abortion rights, with affirmative action faced with a similar fate.

A Statistical Insight into the Court's Changing Priorities

To quantify the shift in the Court's attention, two distinct periods were analyzed: during Obama’s presidency from 2009 to 2016 and the more recent terms following Justice Amy Coney Barrett's 2020 confirmation.

Under Obama, 12 cases connected to cultural issues characterized his terms. Following Barrett's appointment, this increased to 18 for the recent cycles.

Method of Evaluation

Cases were examined across four primary categories: abortion, firearms, LGBTQ rights, and religion.

Some contentious cases did not meet the criteria for inclusion. For example, Snyder v. Phelps (2011) pertained to free speech rather than LGBTQ or religion, despite involvement of anti-gay language by a religious group.

The current analysis also excluded cases on the Supreme Court's 'shadow docket'—those handled on an emergency basis without detailed explanations—where recent years under Trump have seen an increase in such expedient decisions.

Increasing Presence in Cultural Matters

Increased engagement with religious cases marks the Court's activities, even more so if expedited cases are considered. Religion has consistently played a crucial role in American life, indicating a steady consideration by the Court.

Before Justice Barrett's confirmation, verdicts on abortion were rare. A notable exception was Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), with only one such case under Obama.

Since then, three major abortion cases have seen the Court often siding with anti-abortion stances, exemplified by decisions in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021), Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), and others.

Similarly, Second Amendment issues have seen increased attention. Only one such decision emerged during Obama's terms, yet today, the current bench has already expanded its interpretations with significant ramifications.

Drivers Behind the Changing Case Mix

A key reason is the majority's influence over the cases it chooses to review, often aligning them with specific political objectives. Since Republicans have campaigned against Roe v. Wade, the removal of its protections under Dobbs became foreseeable as soon as a solid GOP majority took form.

Moreover, with a stable right-wing majority, justices face fewer risks in dealing with divisive cases. Historically, a balanced Court deterred such risks due to uncertainties about pivotal justice votes.

Today, the conservative justices often unify, with dissent typically confined to nuances rather than ideological divides.

As the ideological composition of the Court prompts legislative and litigative changes, the influence of the Court is palpable. A strong Republican presence legitimizes once improbable conservative ambitions in the judiciary.

Furthermore, the Court frequently plays a role in clarifying new legal standards post-ruling. These can lead to further complications and interpretations, as seen in the contentious Second Amendment guidance under Bruen.

Looking Ahead

It's likely that cultural topics will eventually wane from the Court's agenda after Republican priorities are embedded in numerous precedents. However, in the immediate future, these cultural concerns continue to shape the Republican justices' influence on American legal and cultural landscapes.