Teaching constitutional law is generally enjoyable, apart from a few complex topics. The classroom experience often highlights how slowly the American Constitution evolves, a pace that arguably supports the steadfast “rule of law” that many Americans value.
Interestingly, since 1996, my students have consistently remarked that Constitutional Law is the highlight of their law school experience. Though, let’s be honest—everyone’s interests are different. Some might really connect with “Uniform Business Law,” while “Trusts and Estates” might raise some eyebrows. It’s striking how this field touches everyone’s lives, and it’s essential for law students to grasp it, if not as future lawyers, then certainly as informed citizens. The reality is, not many lawyers end up dealing with constitutional matters regularly. In fact, only a handful ever present cases in the Supreme Court.
This brings us to June and early July every year, when the nation’s media tends to zero in on the rulings emerging from the Supreme Court, located at One First Street in Washington, D.C. The decisions made by this top court influence all Americans. The narratives surrounding these cases are compelling, resonating well across various media platforms.
Platforms like SCOTUSblog have become invaluable for those tracking court decisions, especially for those outside the legal profession trying to interpret the implications of the end-of-term judgments. This is particularly relevant as there’s plenty of discussion about whether the court is leaning toward the right or the left on various issues.
According to analysts Jake Truscott and Adam Feldman, this term has shown more ideological division compared to the previous one. For instance, last term had about 15.2% of decisions reached through a 6-3 vote, while this term saw significant increases in those numbers to 28.8% and 22.7%, respectively.
This suggests a slight shift to the right, although a little over 20% of the opinions were divided along “originalist” versus “living constitutionalist” lines. Here, “originalists” include Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh often come across as moderates. On the liberal side, we have Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
This term has seen 67 majority opinions issued, alongside many smaller decisions made throughout the court’s term, which generally runs from October to late June.
Truscott and Feldman noted that while the court appears conservative, not all cases follow a strictly ideological pattern. For example, Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh aligned with the majorities most often at rates of 95%, followed closely by Justice Barrett at 92%.
Justice Jackson, however, often found himself in the minority, participating in majorities just 67% of the time.
What this reflects is that the justices, known for being more ideologically left, still played a pivotal role in two of the significant cases this term. This dispels fears that a radical transformation is imminent within the judiciary. Public perception continues to evolve, with concerns about the politicization of the courts, especially among some district judges who provide unexpected rulings. Still, the Supreme Court remains a stabilizing force in a nation recently celebrating its 250th anniversary.
Law students learn that courts often take their time, and when they don’t—like during the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling—expecting widespread compliance isn’t realistic. Sometimes, the courts lead public sentiment, but they hardly ever reroute political discussions in any meaningful way. Efforts to do so often worsen rather than repair societal divisions.
This year’s most debated rulings, though often highlighted, aren’t necessarily more divisive than landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade or Bush v. Gore. The most significant case this term was likely National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, which deemed unconstitutional a part of the Federal Election Campaign Act that restricted how much political parties could spend directly in coordination with candidates’ campaigns—a relief for major parties in need of financial flexibility.
Another case, regarding “birthright citizenship” (Trump v. Barbara), attracted attention but came with little surprise to the general public. Honestly, I’m not sure how many outside academia truly grasp the complexities of citizenship for babies born in the U.S. during a time when border enforcement was loosened. Those kinds of discussions might lose urgency over time, despite ongoing debates on immigration policy.
This, in itself, underscores a triumph of the rule of law. For the most part, Americans tend to accept the court’s decisions and move on. Contrary to dramatic narratives about political figures, former President Trump consistently adhered to court rulings, even when he disagreed strongly. This illustrates the Supreme Court’s authority. When it comes to disputes that split the nation, it has the final word, a precedent set since the Civil War that hopefully remains intact.
So, as we look ahead, dismiss the skeptics and the pessimists. The Supreme Court is on track to resume its work in October. The principle that our nation is governed by laws—not merely individuals—will persist. While “Con Law” may be the most fascinating course in law school, its core principles remain mostly unchanged over the years, which is, frankly, a good thing.
