By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst
(CNN) – For over fifty years, the Supreme Court had a group of conservative centrists who shaped key decisions at the end of each term in June. Justices like Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy were known for their pragmatic approaches.
O’Connor, who had experience as a state senator and sharp political instincts, fostered a sense of community by arranging lunches after oral arguments, hosting bridge games, and even organizing trips to meet with judges from other countries. She valued unity among justices even when they disagreed on legal matters.
In contrast, today’s justices are divided in many ways, especially regarding their firm beliefs. The court is currently split 6-3 along ideological lines, with significant disagreements within the six-member conservative group about how much precedent should be overturned.
A major trait of today’s court is the lack of a practical center. This shift has been developing for years but has become clear through recent rulings and how justices collaborate.
The voting-rights cases from Louisiana and Alabama this spring illustrate this historic transformation by making it nearly impossible to address intentional racial discrimination in redistricting.
These rulings not only overturned longstanding legal precedents but also disrupted electoral practices nationwide during an important midterm primary season, primarily benefiting Republicans.
This trend aligns with other significant shifts such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade and ending racial affirmative action in higher education. It reflects an approach that contrasts sharply with the more pragmatic mindset held by Kennedy, O’Connor, and Justice Lewis Powell before them-all appointed by Republican presidents.
When O’Connor and Kennedy decided in 1992 to uphold abortion rights established in Roe v. Wade from 1973, they emphasized that they couldn’t ignore the impact that reversing this decision would have on “people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case.”
They framed the court’s challenges in broader societal terms: “Some of us as individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles of morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.”
A decade earlier, when Powell provided a crucial fifth vote for public education rights for children of undocumented immigrants, he stated clearly: “It hardly can be argued rationally that anyone benefits from the creation within our borders of a subclass of illiterate persons.”
Unlike today’s majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts, neither Powell nor O’Connor or Kennedy aimed to completely overhaul the nation’s laws.
“Both Justices Kennedy and O’Connor cared about what people thought about the court,” explained University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman, who once clerked for Kennedy. “They offered a middle ground because they valued mainstream views across America and wanted to keep the Supreme Court aligned with those perspectives. And rightly so – it doesn’t work for an unelected court to cater exclusively to a shrinking minority.”
The loss of this constructive center likely adds to current tensions seen in written opinions and challenges faced when resolving cases. With roughly ten days left in the ongoing 2025-26 session, there are still 17 cases pending-many concerning President Donald Trump’s authority.
The disputes involve Trump’s attempts to limit birthright citizenship against what’s guaranteed by the 14th Amendment-that anyone born on U. S. soil automatically becomes a citizen-as well as his efforts to dismiss heads of independent agencies like those at the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve. Roberts has previously sought ways to expand presidential power over these agencies like FTC which puts him on similar ground as Trump.
“I thought there was an institutional pragmatism with Roberts,” commented Georgetown University law professor Brad Snyder, “but I think I may have viewed things through rose-colored glasses.”
Snyder pointed out April’s Louisiana decision significantly limited voting rights alongside a 2024 opinion providing Trump considerable immunity against prosecution while running for reelection despite facing charges related to election interference from 2020.
Both rulings reinforced public sentiment portraying justices as Snyder put it: “politicians in robes,” something Roberts has worked hard trying to change.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett was pivotal in changing dynamics as she became Trump’s third appointee following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing in October 2020; resulting ultimately into having six conservative justices-a first since modern history.
This transition didn’t merely create one extra vote-it allowed conservatives room needed for confidence; evident through successive reversals affecting landmark decisions regarding abortion rights (in 2022), college affirmative action (in 2023), plus redistricting changes this year.
This majority also further solidified its stance by expanding presidential immunity alongside declaring federal judges lacked authority necessary for issuing universal injunctions blocking presidential policies throughout subsequent years via their familiar division operating at 6-3 ratio:...….
.. | | | |. |. | | This doesn't mean change hasn't occurred over recent years. A new way forward emerged since Kavanaugh took over from Kennedy back. |. -| - -. |. - - - -.. - - -| - & __. _ _. __. _ __. _ _. _. ___. - - _. __.. -|-_ ____ _ ____ _." ________ _________." The past changes leading up until now began during Kavanaugh's confirmation back year which saw him take up position succeeding former Chief Justice John Roberts replacing outgoing fellow classmate Clarence Thomas afterward. Yet some experts initially speculated if either he or Barrett might step into bridging gap previously held between moderate side versus extreme factions present now characterized mainly through rising tensions observed amongst various groups involved especially reflecting ongoing struggles reflected down below between two sides really: While Barrett indeed sided occasionally left however largely comes solely pursuing narrower results rooted solely via textualist methodology adopted onto preceding history-shift remaining any prior constructed notions establish presence maintaining central figure existed into representing broader ideology far beyond limits thus explored further through Powell ideally designed accordingly navigating atmosphere previously built surrounding members present era encompassing anything resembling previous structure instilled first place originally transitioning forth whether personally perhaps following suit closely behind others truly followed forms existing already defined postulating representations intended possibly evoking responses quite unique altogether shaping contemporary sphere almost entirely isolated out number purely driven influences emanating outside scope typically expected!
