WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings that illustrate both the Court’s prevailing ideological divisions and instances of cross-ideological agreement. In Louisiana v. Callais, the Court made it more difficult to bring successful claims of racial gerrymandering under the Voting Rights Act. In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Court struck down certain tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.
In Louisiana v. Callais, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The three Democratic-appointed justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. The ruling clears the way for Louisiana’s governor and state lawmakers to implement a congressional map with six districts favoring Republicans and one favoring a Democrat.
By contrast, the decision in Learning Resources v. Trump featured an unexpected coalition. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion, which included not only conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett but also liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented in that case.
Close Supreme Court decisions do not always follow the expected conservative-liberal ideological axis. Ideologically divided rulings are common in areas tied to national political conflict—such as race, voting rights, and executive power—but some disputes produce alliances that cut across conventional judicial lines. The Court’s composition includes six justices appointed by Republican presidents and three appointed by Democratic presidents.