In a refreshing display of unity, the U.S. Supreme Court, despite its 6-3 conservative majority, handed down four unanimous decisions on Thursday, proving that even in a polarized age, consensus isn’t a pipe dream.
On Thursday, the court issued six rulings total, with four of them showcasing a rare across-the-board agreement on issues ranging from disability rights in schools to veterans’ benefits, government accountability for botched operations, and habeas petition rules, Newsweek reported.
Let’s start with the backdrop: the court’s conservative tilt, cemented by the nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett during President Trump’s first term, often fuels perceptions of ideological splits.
Yet, public confidence in the court has taken a nosedive, with a 2024 Pew Research Center survey showing only 47% of Americans view it favorably, compared to 76% in 1987. Democrats, per the same survey, are far more likely to suspect the justices let personal politics sway their rulings. It’s a sad state when trust in our highest court mirrors a coin toss.
Still, unanimous decisions aren’t as rare as the divisive headlines—like the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade—might suggest. Supreme Court data reveals 44% of cases in 2023 and 50% in 2022 were unanimous, though 2021 saw a dip below 30%, the lowest in decades. Maybe Thursday’s unity is a quiet pushback against the narrative of a fractured bench.
Michael Salamone, a political science professor at Washington State University, told Newsweek the court often rules as one more than folks realize. “Divided cases get more coverage,” he noted, pointing to their political weight and the newsworthiness of partisan splits. Well, professor, if unity is so common, perhaps the media ought to stop cherry-picking drama over harmony.
Now, onto the rulings themselves, starting with A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, where the court decided that schoolchildren suing under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act don’t need to prove ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’—just the standard discrimination criteria. Chief Justice John Roberts penned the opinion, siding with a Minnesota student with epilepsy denied evening instruction, leaving her with fewer learning hours than her peers. It’s a win for fairness, not bureaucratic excuses.
Roman Martinez, lawyer for the student Ava Tharpe, told Reuters this ruling is a “great win” for kids with disabilities nationwide. If only every progressive agenda item were this grounded in common sense—protecting vulnerable students shouldn’t be a partisan fight.
Next, in Soto v. United States, the justices agreed that a six-year limit under the Barring Act doesn’t apply to claims under the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute. This clears the way for Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto to pursue retroactive benefits for service-related PTSD. Honoring those who’ve sacrificed shouldn’t be a debate, yet here we are, needing a court to affirm it.
Then there’s Martin v. United States, where a Georgia family can now sue the federal government after FBI agents botched an operation and raided their home by mistake. The court ruled the Federal Tort Claims Act doesn’t shield the government from liability in such blunders. Turns out, even Uncle Sam must face the music for slip-ups.
Attorney Patrick Jaicomo, representing the Martins, declared they’re eager to “continue this fight” in the Eleventh Circuit to hold the government accountable. Good luck to them—when federal overreach meets everyday folks, accountability shouldn’t be a pipe dream, though it often feels like one.
Finally, in Rivers v. Guerrero, the court clarified that a second habeas petition counts as ‘second or successive’ once a district court rules on the first, even if an appeal is pending. This affects Texas inmate Danny Rivers, who needed appellate approval for a new petition based on fresh evidence. It’s a procedural hurdle, but clarity in law isn’t always glamorous.
Salamone also mused that justices might “strategically compromise” for credibility in unanimous rulings, though he sees no proof it boosts public support. If anything, with only 47% viewing the court favorably, unity might just be a drop in the bucket against years of eroded trust.
Perhaps it’s less about optics and more about doing the right thing. With more opinions expected before the term wraps in late June, Thursday’s four unanimous rulings offer a glimmer of hope that the court can rise above ideological noise.
These decisions—spanning disability rights, veterans’ benefits, government liability, and legal procedures—show that justice can still find common ground. Let’s hope this spirit holds, even as tougher, divisive cases loom on the horizon.
