WASHINGTON, D.C. — Contested Supreme Court cases from the October 2025 Term produced longer oral argument transcripts, more questions from justices, and more justice-to-justice exchanges than unanimous cases, according to an analysis of six decisions whose arguments concluded April 29, 2026. The review compared three cases resolved 9-0 with three cases decided by divided votes.

The unanimous cases were Barrett v. United States, Berk v. Choy, and Ellingburg v. United States. The contested cases were United States Postal Service v. Konan and Bowe v. United States, each decided 5-4, and Hencely v. Fluor Corp., decided 6-3.

Contested arguments averaged 93.7 transcript pages, compared with 73 pages for unanimous arguments. Justices took an average of 200.3 question turns in contested cases, against 136.7 in unanimous cases. Transitions between justices during questioning averaged 60.3 per contested argument and 36 per unanimous argument.

Skeptical and challenging questions averaged 35.0 per contested argument and 24.0 per unanimous argument. Questions probing logical foundations averaged 26.3 per contested argument and 18.7 per unanimous argument. Higher levels of skeptical questioning predict contested case outcomes, while lower levels of skeptical questioning combined with more doctrinal questions predict consensus decisions.

In Konan, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recorded the highest question turn count and joined the dissent. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinions in both Konan and Hencely v. Fluor Corp. Thomas asked the fewest or near-fewest questions in each of the six cases, and his questions were primarily exploratory or doctrinal.

Konan concerns statutory interpretation in the mail-liability context. Bowe concerns federal habeas corpus procedure. Hencely concerns military-contractor preemption and wartime tort liability. Barrett v. United States involves criminal sentencing, Berk v. Choy involves federal civil procedure, and Ellingburg v. United States involves the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act.

In Ellingburg, questioning focused on clarifying the doctrinal framework rather than challenging legal conclusions. In Berk v. Choy, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's questions aimed to identify the narrowest adequate ground for decision.