The Supreme Court docket is being consumed by the tradition battle

[ad_1] The Supreme Court docket is way extra targeted on cultural political points resembling faith, weapons, LGBTQ rights, and abortion than it was within the latest previous. The present Court docket is listening to greater than twice as many circumstances that contact on these points than it did through the Obama administration. There are a number of the explanation why, together with the justices’ personal curiosity in cultural politics, the truth that right-leaning legal professionals usually tend to carry lawsuits in search of to alter the legislation after they have a pleasant Court docket, and the truth that the justices have made so many latest adjustments to the legislation that they typically should make clear how their new authorized guidelines work. The Supreme Court docket for a lot of the final a number of a long time has been a reasonably technocratic physique.

The Court docket, to make sure, has handed down its share of historic circumstances: Case names like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Roe v. Wade (1973) are acquainted to most People, however such extremely political and culturally salient circumstances have traditionally made up solely a small share of the Court docket’s work.

A method that the Court docket has modified is that the present panel of 9 justices seems to be fixated on tradition battle points resembling faith, weapons, LGBTQ points, and abortion. Although these 4 points don't exhaust the numerous cultural divides that drive a lot of US politics, they seize most of the Republican Occasion’s present cultural grievances. And the present Court docket, which has a 6-3 Republican majority, now hears more than twice as many cases pertaining to these 4 points than it did throughout, say, the Obama presidency.

Throughout these eight years below President Barack Obama, the Court docket heard a dozen circumstances that targeted on these points. In contrast, within the 5 Supreme Court docket phrases that started with Republicans controlling six votes on the Court docket (2021-present), it has heard 18 circumstances that concentrate on these points. That works out to three.6 circumstances per Supreme Court docket time period, in comparison with 1.5 below Obama.

That is true even because the variety of circumstances heard by the justices has been in steady decline since the 1980s . When Chief Justice John Roberts was a younger lawyer within the Reagan White Home, he as soon as quipped that it's reassuring that “ the court can only hear roughly 150 cases each term .” However the Court docket hasn’t heard anywhere near that number for years . In its 2024-25 time period the Supreme Court docket decided just 62 cases that obtained full briefing and an oral argument.

<img alt="A line chart shows the number of cases heard each year by the Supreme Court, with a high volume in the late 1800s, an average of 150 cases in the 1900s, and a drop to under 100 in the 2000s. " data-chromatic="ignore" loading="lazy" decoding="async" data-nimg="fill" class="mvmjsc0" style="position:absolute;height:100%;width:100%;left:0;top:0;right:0;bottom:0;color:transparent;background-size:cover;background-position:50% 50%;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-image:url("data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,%3Csvg xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg' %3E%3Cfilter id='b' color-interpolation-filters='sRGB'%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3CfeColorMatrix values='1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 -1' result='s'/%3E%3CfeFlood x='0' y='0' width='100%25' height='100%25'/%3E%3CfeComposite operator='out' in='s'/%3E%3CfeComposite in2='SourceGraphic'/%3E%3CfeGaussianBlur stdDeviation='20'/%3E%3C/filter%3E%3Cimage width='100%25' height='100%25' x='0' y='0' preserveAspectRatio='none' style='filter: url(%23b);' href=''/%3E%3C/svg%3E")" sizes="(max-width: 639px) 100vw, (max-width: 1023px) 50vw, 700px" srcset="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=256 256w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=376 376w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=384 384w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=415 415w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=480 480w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=540 540w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=640 640w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=750 750w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=828 828w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=1080 1080w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=1200 1200w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=1440 1440w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=1920 1920w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=2048 2048w, https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=2400 2400w" src="https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2025/12/temp.png?quality=90&strip=all&crop=0%2C0%2C100%2C100&w=2400"/> So the justices are listening to an increasing number of politically charged circumstances, at the same time as their total workload declines.

The Court docket’s rising curiosity in cultural politics received’t shock anybody who has paid shut consideration to the Court docket. In the previous few years, the Court docket’s Republican majority seems to have been going down a checklist — figuring out Twentieth-century precedents which are out of favor throughout the GOP, and overruling these selections. That is the interval when the Court docket abolished the constitutional proper to an abortion, banned affirmative motion on practically all school campuses, and gave itself a veto power over the executive branch’s policy decisions , amongst different issues.

The shifting docket reveals a Court docket that sees — and is seizing — many alternatives to reverse, or at the least rethink, a few of liberals’ largest cultural wins.

The Court docket’s new obsession with the tradition wars, by the numbers

To evaluate simply how the Court docket’s consideration has shifted, I checked out two separate intervals.

I examined all eight of the Supreme Court docket phrases that started whereas Obama was president, that means the time period that started in October of 2009 by way of the time period that started in October of 2016. I additionally examined the 2021-22 by way of 2025-26 phrases — the 5 full phrases after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s affirmation in 2020.

General, I recognized a dozen “tradition battle” circumstances that the Court docket determined through the Obama phrases, and 18 that the Court docket determined (or will resolve) within the 5 most up-to-date phrases. You'll be able to see the circumstances I recognized in this spreadsheet .

I checked out circumstances regarding 4 points — abortion, weapons, LGBTQ rights, and faith. Right here is how I outlined these 4 classes:

Abortion : I coded a case as an abortion case if the Court docket’s holding decided the substantive rights of abortion suppliers or sufferers in search of an abortion. I excluded circumstances the place abortion was talked about, however the authorized challenge earlier than the Court docket was jurisdictional or procedural. One instance of a case that I didn't embody is FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024). Though the plaintiffs in that case sought to ban a well-liked abortion drug, the Court docket held that the federal judiciary lacked jurisdiction to listen to the case. Weapons : I restricted this class to circumstances involving the scope of the Second Modification. I excluded circumstances decoding statutes that regulate weapons or that criminalize some types of gun use or possession, largely as a result of the courts hear numerous felony prosecutions involving gun offenses that aren't particularly political. LGBTQ : This class contains circumstances the place the Court docket decided the substantive rights that LGBTQ individuals take pleasure in as a result of they're homosexual, bisexual, or transgender. It excludes circumstances the place sexual orientation or gender identification are talked about, however they're solely incidental to the authorized challenge earlier than the Court docket. Faith : This class contains two units of circumstances; the primary is circumstances decoding the Structure’s ensures that everybody could freely train their religion, and that the federal government shall not set up a faith. I additionally included circumstances decoding the Non secular Freedom Restoration Act and the Non secular Land Use and Institutionalized Individuals Act, each of that are statutes that Congress enacted to restore constitutional rights that the Supreme Court docket diminished in Employment Division v. Smith (1990). One consequence of those definitions is that some high-profile circumstances are excluded. I didn't code Snyder v. Phelps (2011) as both an LGBTQ case or a faith case, for instance, regardless that that case involved a church group that held up indicators with anti-gay slurs exterior a army funeral. The reason being that the authorized query in Snyder neither concerned the Structure’s faith clauses, nor did it contain the substantive rights of LGBTQ individuals. As an alternative, it was a free speech case and the Court docket nearly definitely would have reached the identical outcome if this church group had held up equally offensive indicators that didn't goal homosexual individuals.

Equally, I didn't embody Garland v. Cargill (2024), a statutory weapons case that legalized “bump shares,” gadgets that may convert a semiautomatic rifle into an automated weapon, as a result of that case didn't increase a constitutional query.

In developing with these lists of circumstances, I made a number of judgment calls. Though Justice Barrett was confirmed in late October 2020, for instance, I didn't take a look at the 2020-21 time period as a result of the Court docket sometimes decides which circumstances it's going to hear months upfront, so Barrett performed no position in selecting most of the circumstances that the Court docket heard in that time period. I wished to check the combo of circumstances the Court docket took earlier than Trump made any adjustments in its membership to the combo of circumstances it took in spite of everything three of the justices he appointed joined the Court docket.

I additionally solely included circumstances that obtained full briefing and oral argument, and excluded circumstances handed down on the Court docket’s “ shadow docket ,” a mixture of emergency motions and different issues the Court docket decides on an expedited foundation and sometimes with out explaining its choice. (Had I included shadow docket circumstances, the numbers would present that the present justices are much more interested by weighing in on cultural grievances than their Obama-era counterparts, because the Court docket began deciding significantly more cases on its shadow docket under Trump .)

The circumstances I included all match into at the least one among 4 classes: abortion, weapons, LGBTQ rights, or faith. If you wish to understand how I outline these 4 classes, I clarify it in a sidebar to this essay.

The Court docket now routinely weighs in on points that it hardly ever touched below Obama

Though the Supreme Court docket now hears faith circumstances extra typically than it did below Obama — a pattern that's even more pronounced in case you embody shadow docket circumstances — faith has at all times been an necessary a part of many People’ identification. So the Court docket has heard a gradual weight-reduction plan of faith circumstances for fairly a while.

Eight of the 12 tradition war-related circumstances I recognized from the eight Supreme Court docket phrases that started below Obama are faith circumstances. So, even below Obama, the Court docket was listening to about one faith case every time period, together with very important and politically contentious circumstances like Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), which held that employers with spiritual objections to contraception could refuse to incorporate contraception protection of their workers’ well being plans.

In contrast, previous to Barrett’s affirmation it was a reasonably monumental occasion when the Supreme Court docket introduced it might hear an abortion case. The Court docket determined just one such case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), throughout all eight years of the Obama presidency.

Since Republicans gained a supermajority on the Court docket, against this, they’ve handed down three abortion selections: Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021), Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), and Medina v. Planned Parenthood (2025). In every case, the Court docket dominated towards the pro-abortion rights facet.

Equally, the Court docket determined just one Second Modification case below Obama, McDonald v. Chicago (2010). Certainly, the Court docket used to listen to Second Modification circumstances so occasionally that Justice Clarence Thomas complained in a 2018 dissenting opinion about his Court docket’s “ continued inaction ” on the precise to personal a gun.

In contrast, the Court docket’s present majority has determined two such circumstances, and it plans to listen to two extra in its present time period.

So why is the combo of circumstances heard by the Court docket shifting?

It’s possible that an important issue driving the Court docket’s new focus is that the justices sometimes get to decide on which circumstances they hear, and so justices within the majority can merely choose circumstances that advance their political and coverage targets.

Republicans have campaigned towards Roe v. Wade for many years; it is smart that the Court docket took up Dobbs , the case that overruled Roe , less than a year after Republicans gained a supermajority on the Court .

One other issue is, because the Court docket ’ s rightward majority turns into safer, justices in that majority threat a lot much less after they take up a contentious case. For a few years, the Court docket was break up between 4 anti-abortion justices, 4 who supported abortion rights, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who voted to uphold many abortion restrictions however who also refused to overrule Roe . So it’s possible that the eight justices with agency views on the precise to terminate a being pregnant averted abortion circumstances as a result of they may by no means make certain if Kennedy would vote towards them.

Now, against this, the six Republicans typically vote as a bloc. And when one among them does dissent from their fellow Republicans, it's typically on slender grounds. In Dobbs , for instance, Chief Justice John Roberts didn't vote to overrule Roe , however he did vote to restrict abortion rights and his opinion largely argued that the Court docket ought to have taken a extra incremental strategy to dismantling Roe .

One other possible cause why the Court docket is listening to so many circumstances that concentrate on Republican cultural grievances is that each litigants and state lawmakers sometimes shift their behavior after they understand the Court docket shifting left or proper. A 6-3 Republican Court docket signifies that anti-abortion legal guidelines that may have been blocked by judges only a few years in the past will as a substitute take full impact. And it additionally signifies that conservative causes that have been laughed out of courtroom for a lot of a long time can now prevail.

Federal courts, for instance, have traditionally rejected claims by mother and father who search to change a public faculty’s classes or curriculum as a result of they object to it on spiritual grounds — largely attributable to issues that it might be impossible for a school to tailor its lessons to align with the spiritual views of each single mother or father. Final time period, nonetheless, in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), the Republican justices held that public faculties should give mother and father advance discover of classes that offend their spiritual beliefs, together with a possibility to decide their youngster out of the lesson.

A last issue that contributes to the Court docket’s new fixation on tradition battle points is that the Supreme Court docket typically has at hand down selections clarifying a brand new authorized rule within the years after that rule is introduced. That is very true if the brand new rule is complicated or in any other case more likely to spark disagreement amongst decrease courts.

The justices within the Supreme Court docket’s present majority are, to place it mildly, less skilled at judicial craftsmanship than earlier generations of justices. One instance: The Republican justices’ choice in Bruen — which lays out their strategy to Second Modification circumstances — is so confounding that at the least a dozen judges from each political events have revealed opinions complaining that they cannot figure out how to apply it .

Bruen requires judges to ask if a modern-day gun legislation is “relevantly comparable” to a gun regulation that existed centuries in the past, and to strike down the modern-day legislation if it's not. However the justices who assist Bruen have struggled to articulate simply how comparable the 2 legal guidelines should be, and decrease courtroom judges often disagree on how you can apply Bruen to a specific case. That signifies that the Supreme Court docket should spend an uncommon quantity of its time resolving these disputes till Bruen is scrapped for a extra workable normal.

All of which is a great distance of claiming that the Court docket’s new curiosity in cultural grievances was straightforward to foretell after Barrett’s affirmation.

It's fairly possible that, if Republicans preserve agency management of the Supreme Court docket sooner or later, that the Court docket’s fixation on cultural points will finish. Given sufficient time in energy, Republican justices are more likely to exhaust the listing of precedents they want to overrule and make clear many points that at the moment confuse decrease courtroom judges. So tradition battle politics could fade from the Court docket’s docket as Republicans entrench their victories on these points.

However, for the second, at the least, the six Republican justices seem fairly keen to place their mark on US cultural politics. They usually don’t seem more likely to again away from these cultural grievances any time quickly.