For
11
years
between
1994
and
2005,
there
was
no
turnover
in
membership
on
the
Supreme
Court.
There
were
four
changes
to
the
Court’s
composition
between
2005
and
2010,
and
then
another
four
changes
between
2017
and
2022.
Of
the
four
newest
justices
on
the
Court,
three
were
appointed
by
President
Trump
and
one
by
President
Biden.
In
the
most
recent
Supreme
Court
term,
Justices
Neil
Gorsuch,
Amy
Coney
Barrett,
Brett
Kavanaugh,
and
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
significantly
influenced
rulings
with
broad
implications.
The
conservative
supermajority,
including
Gorsuch,
Barrett,
and
Kavanaugh,
limited
federal
regulatory
authority,
restricted
prosecutorial
discretion,
and
expanded
presidential
immunity.
Gorsuch,
a
libertarian,
advocated
for
strict
limitations
on
agency
power
and
supported
overturning
the Chevron doctrine.
Barrett,
while
often
aligned
with
conservatives,
showed
independence
in
dissenting
on
obstruction
statute
interpretations
related
to
January
6.
Kavanaugh,
seen
as
more
of
a
moderate
on
the
right,
pragmatically
supported
federal
limits
while
maintaining
certain
rights.
Justice
Jackson,
the
only
Biden
appointee,
represents
a
progressive
counterpoint.
Her
dissents
emphasize
civil
liberties
and
deference
to
longstanding
legal
protections,
particularly
in
administrative
law.
Jackson’s
concurrence
on
the
obstruction
statute
reflected
her
commitment
to
statutory
interpretation
and
a
restrained
judicial
role,
indicating
her
willingness
to
collaborate
across
ideological
lines.
Now
a
look
back
at
the
differences
in
their
first
terms
on
the
Court
which
is
the
focus
of
the
remainder
of
this
article.
Justice
Jackson
Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson’s
debut
term
on
the
Supreme
Court
was
dynamic,
marked
by
her
deep
involvement
and
distinctive
voice
in
oral
arguments
and
written
opinions.
Her
presence
reshaped
the
bench’s
rhythm,
frequently
questioning
the
impact
of
legal
arguments
on
marginalized
communities
and
historically
underrepresented
groups.
Known
for
her
rigorous,
probing
inquiries,
she
navigated
complex
cases
with
pointed
precision,
especially
in
decisions
surrounding
affirmative
action
and
voting
rights.
She
brought
her
legal
prowess
to
significant
cases
shaping
the
future
of
education
and
electoral
authority.
In Students
for
Fair
Admissions
v.
North
Carolina/Harvard,
she
pushed
for
race-conscious
admissions
policies,
highlighting
the
role
such
policies
play
in
countering
historic
inequities,
particularly
for
disadvantaged
communities.
In Moore
v.
Harper,
she
joined
a
majority
in
rejecting
the
“independent
state
legislature
theory,”
which
could
have
sharply
increased
state
legislatures’
power
over
elections,
a
decision
seen
as
a
reinforcement
of
judicial
checks
on
electoral
processes.
Both
cases
spotlighted
Jackson’s
approach
to
interpreting
the
law
in
ways
that
reflect
constitutional
protections
for
equality.
Justice
Barrett
In
specific
cases,
Barrett
joined
other
conservative
justices
in
several
pivotal
rulings
that
reinforced
free
exercise
rights,
property
rights,
and
the
separation
of
powers.
In Roman
Catholic
Diocese
of
Brooklyn
v.
Cuomo,
the
Court
ruled
in
favor
of
religious
groups
challenging
COVID-19
restrictions
on
worship,
while
in Fulton
v.
City
of
Philadelphia,
it
upheld
the
rights
of
Catholic
Social
Services
in
a
dispute
over
foster
care
services.
Moreover,
the
Court
underscored
protections
for
property
rights
in Cedar
Point
Nursery
v.
Hassid,
preventing
union
access
to
private
land,
and
affirmed
presidential
removal
power
in Collins
v.
Yellen.
Barrett’s
presence
influenced
a
clear
majority
that
consistently
leaned
toward
conservative
interpretations,
disproving
the
theory
of
a
fractured
Court
and
showing
unity
among
the
justices
on
key
constitutional
principles.
Justice
Kavanaugh
Justice
Brett
Kavanaugh’s
first
Supreme
Court
term
solidified
his
conservative
stance.
In
key
cases,
he
joined
with
conservatives
to
restrict
federal
court
intervention
in
partisan
gerrymandering
and
supported
adding
a
citizenship
question
to
the
2020
census.
Kavanaugh
also
backed
limits
on
abortion
in
a
Louisiana
case
and
opposed
a
death
row
inmate’s
appeal
regarding
lethal
injection
pain.
His
rulings
often
emphasized
reducing
federal
agency
power,
as
seen
in Gundy
v.
United
States and Kisor
v.
Wilkie,
where
he
sought
to
limit
agencies’
regulatory
authority.
Kavanaugh
occasionally
aligned
with
liberal
justices,
as
in
allowing
an
antitrust
case
against
Apple
and
advocating
for
a
fair
trial
in
a
race-charged
jury
selection
case,
though
his
decisions
overall
underscore
a
reliably
conservative
judicial
approach.
Justice
Gorsuch
Justice
Neil
Gorsuch
has
established
himself
as
a
strong
textualist
on
the
Supreme
Court,
following
in
the
footsteps
of
Justice
Antonin
Scalia.
His
opinions
emphasize
strict
adherence
to
legal
texts
and
a
restrained
judiciary,
evident
in
his
inaugural
decision
in Henson
v.
Santander
Consumer
USA,
where
he
affirmed
the
role
of
the
judiciary
as
interpreters
of
the
law.
Gorsuch
has
voiced
concerns
about
federal
overreach
and
the
preservation
of
states’
rights.
In
a
dissent
on
federal
courts
exercising
authority
over
state
law
claims,
he
criticized
the
erosion
of
boundaries
between
state
and
federal
power.
He
also
defended
individual
rights
in
cases
like Minnesota
Voters
Alliance
v.
Mansky,
where
he
questioned
the
state’s
authority
to
restrict
voter
attire,
and NIFLA
v.
Becerra,
where
he
challenged
California’s
mandate
on
private
advertising
of
state
services.
Issues
and
Votes
* Case
coding
was
derived
from
the
most
recent
iteration
of
the United
States
Supreme
Court
Database.
Justice
Gorsuch’s
early
years
demonstrate
a
commitment
to
conservative
principles,
particularly
in
First
Amendment
and
union-related
cases,
aligning
him
with
the
Court’s
conservative
ethos
on
free
speech
and
limiting
government
intervention.
However,
his
higher
dissent
rates
in
criminal
procedure
(35.29%)
and
economic
activity
cases
(19.44%)
reflect
a
libertarian
approach,
prioritizing
individual
rights
over
state
or
federal
authority.
His
dissents
regarding
judicial
power
(19.35%)
further
underscore
his
willingness
to
diverge
from
the
majority
in
advocating
for
limited
government
reach.
Justice
Kavanaugh
had
a
strong
majority
presence
on
high-stakes
issues,
with
a
100%
majority
vote
in
cases
involving
economic
activity
and
federalism.
His
pattern
reflects
a
tendency
to
uphold
existing
federal
authority
and
prioritize
stability
in
economic
regulations.
His
dissent
rates
in
civil
rights
(23.81%)
and
judicial
power
cases
(23.08%)
indicate
a
willingness
to
question
the
Court’s
majority
when
individual
liberties
or
judicial
authority
are
at
stake,
but
his
overall
alignment
signifies
a
stabilizing
influence
within
the
conservative
wing.
Justice
Barrett
was
frequently
in
the
majority
across
various
issue
areas,
including
civil
rights
and
criminal
procedure,
signaling
her
alignment
with
the
Court’s
conservative
leaning.
She
supported
the
majority
in
over
88%
of
First
Amendment
cases
and
95%
of
civil
rights
cases,
indicating
a
tendency
to
uphold
conservative
interpretations
impacting
individual
liberties.
Her
limited
dissents,
particularly
in
economic
activity
(13.64%)
and
criminal
procedure
(11.54%),
suggest
occasional
divergence
from
the
majority,
yet
her
votes
favored
foundational
issues
like
federalism
and
judicial
power.
Justice
Jackson’s
voting
record
reflects
a
more
mixed
alignment
with
the
Court’s
majority.
Her
higher
dissent
rates
in
criminal
procedure
(40.91%)
and
economic
activity
(23.33%)
suggest
a
progressive
inclination
toward
individual
rights.
While
she
aligned
with
the
majority
in
many
civil
rights
(76.19%)
and
First
Amendment
cases
(87.5%),
her
pattern
indicates
an
openness
to
dissenting
against
the
Court’s
majority,
particularly
in
criminal
justice
and
economic
regulations,
positioning
her
as
a
leftward
influence
on
the
Court.
Authorships
By
Issue
Area
Gorsuch
and
Kavanaugh
frequently
addressed
arbitration
issues,
particularly
in
employment
disputes.
Gorsuch
authored
two
opinions
on
labor-related
arbitration,
while
Kavanaugh’s
focus
was
broader,
indicating
a
conservative
approach
that
limits
litigation
and
promotes
private
dispute
resolution.
In
contrast,
Jackson
and
Barrett
engaged
with
arbitration
cases
only
once.
In
criminal
law,
Gorsuch
and
Kavanaugh
wrote
opinions
on
the
death
penalty’s
constitutionality,
underscoring
their
conservative
stance
on
sentencing.
Jackson
focused
on
defendants’
rights
and
protections,
while
Barrett
addressed
double
jeopardy.
Gorsuch
and
Barrett
also
authored
opinions
related
to
administrative
law
and
federal
preemption,
advocating
for
restricted
administrative
authority
and
state
sovereignty.
Gorsuch
expressed
skepticism
of
expansive
federal
power,
contrasting
with
Jackson
and
Kavanaugh,
who
did
not
author
opinions
in
this
area.
Kavanaugh
stood
out
with
multiple
opinions
on
First
Amendment
issues,
while
Gorsuch’s
rulings
on
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(FOIA)
showed
his
commitment
to
transparency.
Jackson
demonstrated
her
concern
for
accountability
through
civil
rights
cases.
Jackson
and
Gorsuch
engaged
with
interstate
conflict
issues,
with
Jackson
covering
federal
matters
like
veterans’
rights
and
bankruptcy,
while
Barrett’s
scope
was
more
limited.
Gorsuch
and
Kavanaugh
also
addressed
intellectual
property,
with
Gorsuch
focused
on
patents
and
Kavanaugh
on
copyrights.
The
majority
opinions
authored
by
Justices
Gorsuch,
Kavanaugh,
Barrett,
and
Jackson
reveal
distinct,
yet
sometimes
similar
judicial
philosophies
(at
least
for
Trump’s
nominees).
Gorsuch’s
opinions
relied
on
constitutional
protections
and
statutory
interpretations,
frequently
in
cases
related
to
the
Fifth
and
Sixth
Amendments.
Jackson’s
opinions
reflected
a
commitment
to
individual
rights
and
procedural
fairness,
citing
the
same
amendments
and
engaging
with
the
Federal
Arbitration
Act
and
FOIA.
In
contrast,
Kavanaugh
dealt
more
with
First
Amendment
issues
in
his
opinions,
examining
speech
and
the
judiciary’s
role
in
adjudicating
federal
matters.
Barrett’s
decisions
reflect
a
practical
approach
to
statutory
frameworks,
focusing
on
administrative
law
and
governmental
accountability.
Overall,
Justices
Gorsuch
and
Jackson
had
more
attention
in
their
majority
authorships
on
constitutional
rights,
while
Justices
Kavanaugh
and
Barrett
address
broader
societal
implications
and
regulatory
frameworks,
highlighting
their
distinct
responses
to
contemporary
legal
challenges.
Concluding
Thoughts
In
examining
the
decisions
of
Justices
Jackson,
Barrett,
Gorsuch,
and
Kavanaugh
over
their
initial
two
years
on
the
Supreme
Court,
distinct
patterns
emerge
that
highlight
their
differing
judicial
philosophies
and
priorities.
Justice
Jackson,
as
the
newest
member
of
the
Court,
has
demonstrated
a
strong
commitment
to
civil
rights
and
due
process,
often
aligning
with
majority
opinions
in
cases
involving
these
areas.
Her
judicial
approach
reflected
a
focus
on
the
nuances
of
criminal
law
and
the
implications
of
sentencing,
showcasing
a
propensity
to
advocate
for
the
rights
of
individuals
within
the
justice
system.
In
contrast,
Justice
Barrett’s
voting
patterns
suggested
a
more
traditional
conservative
approach,
with
a
notable
emphasis
on
federal
taxation
and
economic
activity.
Although
she
consistently
voted
in
the
majority,
her
willingness
to
dissent
in
cases
concerning
the
First
Amendment
illustrates
a
complex
engagement
with
free
speech
issues.
This
contrasts
with
Justice
Gorsuch,
who,
while
also
exhibiting
conservative
tendencies,
showed
a
more
libertarian
inclination
in
areas
like
habeas
corpus
and
judicial
power.
His
opinions
reflected
a
commitment
to
protecting
individual
liberties
against
government
overreach,
often
positioning
him
as
a
vocal
advocate
for
defendants’
rights.
Justice
Kavanaugh’s
decisions
exhibited
a
blend
of
conservative
principles
with
an
occasional
bridging
approach
across
ideological
lines.
While
he
frequently
aligned
with
the
majority
in
cases
concerning
civil
rights
and
economic
activity,
his
moderate
dissenting
votes
indicated
a
willingness
to
challenge
the
status
quo
when
he
perceives
a
significant
impact
on
judicial
authority
or
individual
rights.
Overall,
these
justices
reflect
the
ideological
spectrum
of
the
Supreme
Court.
Their
respective
experiences
underscore
the
complexities
of
navigating
legal
precedents
and
the
interpretation
of
constitutional
principles
in
an
increasingly
polarized
judicial
landscape.
Adam
Feldman
runs
the
litigation
consulting
company
Optimized
Legal
Solutions
LLC.
For
more
information
write
Adam
at [email protected]. Find
him
on
Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.