WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court has increasingly relied on 'common sense' reasoning in its legal holdings across several areas of law. In recent cases including Learning Resources v. Trump, Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA (2025), and United States v. Rahimi (2024), the term 'common sense' or 'commonsense' appeared repeatedly in majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions.

In Learning Resources v. Trump, a 6–3 decision, the phrase appeared dozens of times across seven opinions. Every justice authored or joined an opinion invoking 'common sense.' Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the portion of the chief justice’s opinion that repeatedly cited 'common sense,' but in Biden v. Nebraska, he criticized Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s reasoning, calling it 'common sense in name only.'

The trend continued in Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA, where the Court held that fuel producers had standing to sue the Environmental Protection Agency. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s majority opinion used the term 'commonsense' in four successive sentences, and the phrase appeared over a dozen times across the case’s opinions. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stated: 'I have no quarrel with relying on common sense as a general matter. But we should acknowledge that what counts as a “commonsense” inference to the Justices on this Court may not be viewed as such by others.'

In United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Court upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that certain practices 'confirm what common sense suggests.' Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in a separate writing, quoted her own lower court opinion: 'History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor quoted Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, warning that a rigid historical approach would make it 'nearly impossible to sustain common-sense regulations necessary to our Nation’s safety and security.' Justice Clarence Thomas, in dissent, wrote: 'If self-defense is “the central component of the [Second Amendment] right,” then common sense dictates that it matters whether you can defend yourself with a firearm anywhere, only at home, or nowhere.'