Supreme Court Just Dropped Four Unanimous Opinions in One Day

The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, delivered four unanimous opinions on Thursday, showing a united front on a range of cases.

Newsweek has reached out to several legal experts for comment via email on Thursday.

Why It Matters

The Supreme Court currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority. During President Donald Trump‘s first term, he nominated conservative Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Voting along ideological lines is part of the deterioration of the public’s confidence in the nation’s highest court, which has declined over the decades. Forty-seven percent of Americans expressed a favorable view, and 51 percent held an unfavorable opinion, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey. In 1987, 76 percent of Americans viewed the court favorably, while 17 percent had an unfavorable opinion, according to the Pew Research Center.

The same survey found that Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say that the justices are not doing a good job of keeping their personal politics out of their decisions.

Supreme Court data shows unanimous decisions are not uncommon, with 44 percent of cases decided unanimously in 2023 and 50 percent in 2022. However, in 2021, the percentage dipped down under 30 percent, the lowest in decades.

What To Know

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued six decisions, including four unanimous rulings. In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Soto v. United States, Martin v. United States, and Rivers v. Guerrero, all nine justices reached the same conclusion.

In A.J.T., the court ruled that “Schoolchildren bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination context.” Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion.

The ruling came after A.J.T., a student with epilepsy, sued her Minnesota public school over denying her request for evening instruction related to her medical condition, which resulted in fewer instruction hours than her peers.

In another ruling, the court unanimously held that the six-year limitations period under the Barring Act does not apply to claims brought under the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute. The ruling came in the case of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, who sought retroactive benefits for service-related PTSD.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Georgia family can proceed with a lawsuit against the federal government after FBI agents mistakenly raided their home during a botched operation. The justices held that the Federal Tort Claims Act does not shield the government from liability under the Supremacy Clause or discretionary-function exception in such cases.

In a fourth decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a second habeas petition is considered “second or successive” once a district court issues final judgment on the first, even if that judgment is still on appeal. The decision in the case of Texas inmate Danny Rivers means he needed appellate approval before filing a new petition based on newly discovered evidence.

What People Are Saying

Attorney Patrick Jaicomo, who represents the plaintiffs in Martin v. U.S., said in a statement: “We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights.”

Roman Martinez, a lawyer for Ava Tharpe in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, told Reuters in a statement that the ruling is “a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country…We are grateful to the Supreme Court for its decision holding that these children should enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Americans with disabilities.”