Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson completed her freshman term last week in what was a blockbuster year for the Supreme Court, speaking more than any new justice in the past 30 years and charting surprising alliances with some members of the 6-3 conservative bloc.
Nominated by President Joe Biden to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer last spring, Jackson's first year on the high court brought about several unexpected outcomes as she settled into her post as the newest associate justice in the three-member liberal bloc, including her landing in the majority on opinions 84% of the time, according to the Empirical SCOTUS blog.
CRUEL SUMMER: BIDEN FACES BRUISING FEW WEEKS OF SETBACKS AND SCANDAL
The court as a whole was still reeling from a tumultuous term last summer that resulted in weeks of protests outside the justices' homes and serious threats to members of the conservative bloc due to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Without a need to erect a tall fence outside the high court this term over concern for the justices' safety, the public was finally welcomed back to the Supreme Court last fall after nearly three years of closure due to the pandemic. But its rulings also came at a time of low confidence in the Supreme Court as an institution as a trickle of headlines about unreported gifts to Justice Clarence Thomas by a GOP megadonor raised calls for ethics reform.
Here's a look at the Supreme Court's most notable moments from the past term.
Jackson breaks barriers in first term
One of the first distinctions court watchers noticed about Jackson, the first black woman to serve on the court, in her first week of oral arguments was her activity and engagement from the bench. Jackson not only spoke more than any of the past three newest justices, but she also spoke "more than any sitting justice during this period with the exception of the Chief Justice," according to Adam Feldman, founder of Empirical SCOTUS.
Jackson, who wrote five majority opinions and six dissents this term, found herself siding with the majority more often in her first term than even Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was only in the majority 73% of the time during her first year on the bench in 2020.
Jackson was also in the majority slightly more than either of the other liberal justices. She agreed with 84% of the court’s decisions, compared with 82% for Justice Sonia Sotomayor and 80% for Justice Elena Kagan.
One of the most striking alliances she formed was with Trump-appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch, who aligned in at least four opinions this term.
In a concurring opinion in Bittner v. U.S., Gorsuch signed on to her opinion as she wrote that the IRS does not possess “boundless authority” to demand bank records without informing taxpayers who are under investigation.
Legal experts have suggested that Jackson's background as a public defender and Gorsuch's libertarian instinct can sometimes interweave in strange ways. “There’s this meeting of the minds,” Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor at Georgia State University College of Law, told Bloomberg in May.
Court moved historically slow on opinion releases at first
The Supreme Court was not quick this term to begin the release of opinions, saving most of its docket for the final months of May and June.
By April 30 of this year, the high court had only released 15 opinions in the 59 cases heard on the merits this year, numbers that marked the slimmest by that date compared to any time in the past 100 years.
Some court watchers, including Feldman, surmised in January that the investigation into the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization leak, which came back essentially inconclusive, may have prompted the slow start of opinion releases, though the justices finished out their term right on time.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in January it was a "coincidence" the Supreme Court had a slow start and reassured the public that the opinion releases would be wrapped up by June.
Fewest splits along ideological lines in the last five years
The number of ideologically polarized 6-3 rulings on the Supreme Court was at its lowest point in the last five years.
While the strength of the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority was on full display last term, with the conservative majority aligning in 14 of 58 decisions, this term saw only five cases split along ideological lines.
The high court's fall 2016-17 term also saw 14 splits along ideological lines, which dipped down to seven the following year, 10 during the 2018-19 term, and nine in the 2019-2020 term, the year before former President Donald Trump cemented the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority with Barrett's confirmation.
While the low rate suggests the court shifted away from strictly ideological decisions with the addition of Jackson, the justices did split along these lines on important cases such as overturning affirmative action and quashing Biden's student debt relief plan.
Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Jonathan Adler told the Washington Examiner that perceptions of the court from term to term "are driven more by the mix of cases before the court than they are the changes in the court's orientation or direction or the influence of any individual justice."
Court unified on election law and religious rights
A series of election law and religious rights rulings this term were also prominent and notable, as most of these decisions did not split along ideological lines.
While the Republican-appointed majority upended precedent to restrict how colleges can use race in admissions and sided with the owner of a company that refused to create custom websites for same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs, the nine justices were able to please liberals on at least two election law cases.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Chief Justice John Roberts, with the help of fellow conservative Justice Kavanaugh and the three liberals, turned away a legal theory that could have allowed state legislatures more sway over congressional districts and federal elections in the case Moore v. Harper. Likewise, the pair of conservative justices paved the way for black opportunity districts in Alabama and Louisiana, which could mean more seats held by Democrats in the next election.
The Supreme Court also handed down a unanimous ruling in the case of a postal worker who refused to work Sunday shifts, overturning its 1977 precedent that said employers had to "reasonably accommodate" an employee's religious beliefs or practices. The new decision in Groff v. DeJoy strengthened the "undue hardship" standard, which could make it easier for some employees to gain religious accommodation in the workplace.