Explore the question, the ruling, and who voted how. These are selected decisions as issued, not a complete voting record or a statement of personal beliefs.
1954 · Constitutional law
Brown v. Board of Education
Equal protection · Education
The question
Does racial segregation in public schools deny equal protection, even when tangible facilities are comparable?
The outcome
The Court unanimously held that state-imposed racial segregation in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Implementation was addressed separately in Brown II (1955).
See the votes & context
- Majority (9)
- Earl Warren, Hugo L. Black, Stanley F. Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Robert H. Jackson, Harold H. Burton, Tom C. Clark, Sherman Minton
- Dissent (0)
- None
None of the current justices served on the Court in 1954.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2013 · Constitutional law
Shelby County v. Holder
Voting rights · Federalism
The question
Could the Voting Rights Act’s existing coverage formula still determine which jurisdictions needed federal preclearance?
The outcome
The Court invalidated Section 4(b)’s coverage formula. It did not invalidate Section 2 or decide the validity of Section 5 itself; without a valid coverage formula, Section 5 could not operate on its previous basis.
See the votes & context
- Majority (5)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
- Dissent (4)
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2015 · Constitutional law
Obergefell v. Hodges
Equal protection · Marriage
The question
Must states license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex?
The outcome
The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriages and recognize lawful same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
See the votes & context
- Majority (5)
- Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
- Dissent (4)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2020 · Statutory interpretation
Bostock v. Clayton County
Equal protection · Employment
The question
Does Title VII’s ban on discrimination because of sex cover firing someone for being gay or transgender?
The outcome
The Court held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII. This was a statutory interpretation ruling, not a general constitutional ruling on every question involving sex or gender.
See the votes & context
- Majority (6)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch
- Dissent (3)
- Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Brett M. Kavanaugh
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2020 · Administrative law
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Immigration · Executive power
The question
Did the administration follow the Administrative Procedure Act when it rescinded DACA?
The outcome
The Court found the 2017 rescission arbitrary and capricious because the agency failed to consider important aspects of the decision, including reliance interests. It did not hold that DACA could never be ended.
See the votes & context
- Majority (5)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
- Dissent (4)
- Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh
The 5–4 division concerns the rescission ruling. Sotomayor did not join Part IV, addressing equal protection; the other opinions concurred and dissented in part.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2022 · Constitutional law
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Abortion · Due process
The question
Does the Constitution protect a right to abortion, and should Roe and Casey remain binding?
The outcome
The Court upheld Mississippi’s abortion restriction by a 6–3 judgment. Five justices overruled Roe and Casey and held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, returning regulatory authority to elected governments.
See the votes & context
- Majority (5)
- Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
- Concurred in the judgment (1)
- John G. Roberts, Jr.
- Dissent (3)
- Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
Roberts concurred only in the judgment: he would uphold the Mississippi law without overruling Roe and Casey. Overruling those precedents was 5–4, not 6–3.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2022 · Constitutional law
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
Gun rights
The question
Could New York require applicants to show a special need for self-defense to carry a handgun in public?
The outcome
The Court invalidated New York’s proper-cause requirement and adopted a text-and-historical-tradition framework for Second Amendment challenges. It did not invalidate every licensing condition or every firearm regulation.
See the votes & context
- Majority (6)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
- Dissent (3)
- Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2022 · Constitutional law
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
Religious liberty · Free speech
The question
Did a school district violate a football coach’s First Amendment rights by disciplining his postgame prayer?
The outcome
The majority treated the challenged prayer as private religious expression protected by free exercise and free speech. The dissent disputed the majority’s factual framing and stressed students’ exposure to religious pressure.
See the votes & context
- Majority (6)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
- Dissent (3)
- Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
Sotomayor’s dissent was joined by Breyer and Kagan. Kavanaugh joined the Court’s opinion except Part III–B.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2023 · Voting Rights Act
Allen v. Milligan
Voting rights · Equal protection
The question
Was Alabama’s congressional map likely to dilute Black voters’ electoral power in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
The outcome
The Court affirmed the preliminary-injunction ruling against Alabama’s map, applying the established vote-dilution framework under Section 2. The decision concerned the specific record and did not require proportional representation nationwide.
See the votes & context
- Majority (5)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson
- Dissent (4)
- Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett
Kavanaugh joined the judgment and the opinion except Part III–B–1. This summary describes the 2023 decision, not later litigation over Alabama’s maps.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2023 · Constitutional law
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
Equal protection · Education
The question
Did Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program comply with Title VI and equal-protection requirements?
The outcome
The Court held Harvard’s challenged admissions program unlawful. Applicants’ discussions of how race affected their lives may still be considered for individual qualities, but institutions may not recreate the rejected racial preferences indirectly.
See the votes & context
- Majority (6)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
- Dissent (2)
- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
- Did not participate
- Ketanji Brown Jackson
Harvard was 6–2 because Jackson did not participate. In the separately decided UNC companion case, the vote was 6–3 and Jackson participated. Jackson’s participation in UNC does not apply to Harvard.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2023 · Constitutional law
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
Free speech · Equal protection
The question
Could Colorado require a designer to create custom expressive wedding websites conveying a message she opposed?
The outcome
The Court held that the First Amendment barred compelling the custom expressive speech at issue. The ruling addressed the stipulated expressive services, not a general exemption from all public-accommodation laws.
See the votes & context
- Majority (6)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
- Dissent (3)
- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2024 · Administrative law
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Executive power · Administrative law
The question
Must courts defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute under Chevron?
The outcome
The Court overruled Chevron and held that courts must exercise independent judgment on statutory meaning under the Administrative Procedure Act. Existing holdings upholding particular agency actions were not automatically overturned.
See the votes & context
- Majority (6)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
- Dissent (2)
- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan
- Did not participate
- Ketanji Brown Jackson
Loper Bright was 6–2: Jackson did not participate. She joined Kagan’s dissent only in the Relentless companion case, where the vote was 6–3.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2024 · Constitutional law
United States v. Rahimi
Gun rights
The question
May a person found by a court to pose a credible threat to another’s physical safety be temporarily disarmed?
The outcome
The Court rejected Rahimi’s facial challenge to the federal firearm restriction at issue. It explained that historical analogies need not be exact replicas, while retaining Bruen’s history-based framework.
See the votes & context
- Majority (8)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson
- Dissent (1)
- Clarence Thomas
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
2024 · Constitutional law
Trump v. United States
Executive power
The question
What immunity does a former president have from criminal prosecution for conduct while in office?
The outcome
The Court recognized absolute immunity for conduct within exclusive constitutional authority, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. It remanded for application of that framework.
See the votes & context
- Majority (6)
- John G. Roberts, Jr., Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett
- Dissent (3)
- Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson
Barrett joined the Court’s opinion except Part III–C, concerning use of official-act evidence. Sotomayor’s dissent was joined by Kagan and Jackson; Jackson also wrote separately.
Only participating justices are assigned votes. Separate writings and partial joins can differ from the overall judgment.
