In Dissent is a recurring series by Anastasia Boden on Supreme Court dissents that have shaped (or reshaped) our country.

On a cold January day in 2012, a senator walked into the U.S. Capitol, banged a gavel to open a Senate session, then banged it again – sending the Senate back into a break. The whole thing lasted less than a minute. Three days later, another senator did the same thing. Congress was on its holiday break, but to prevent President Barack Obama from using his constitutional power to fill vacancies during congressional recesses without its consent, the Senate was conducting short, pro forma sessions every three days.

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

When Chief Justice Earl Warren was able to achieve unanimous agreement in Brown v. Board of Education, he demonstrated the Supreme Court’s capacity to speak with a single, authoritative voice on foundational constitutional questions. Today’s court appears to operate in a starkly different terrain. Multiple publications have characterized the Roberts court as the most polarized in generations, with recent decisions on abortion, affirmative action, and gun rights fracturing along predictable ideological fissures.

Using comprehensive data on the justices’ agreement rates from 1791 to 2025, we can now trace how justices form coalitions and when these drift apart. This analysis reveals not just whether justices agree, but the dramatic transformation in how much they agree – and disagree – across American constitutional history.

This morning, Friday, Dec. 12, the justices are gathering for their final regularly scheduled private conference of the year to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. The petitions set to be considered – or reconsidered – address several significant topics, including the scope of Second Amendment protections, a unique response to climate change, and whether the government can seize a $95,000 plane over a six-pack of beer.

Here is a brief overview of five notable issues that are in front of the court at this week’s conference.

Yesterday’s argument in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v Saba Capital Master Fund showed a bench surprisingly receptive of private parties having the ability to sue investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Although the justices have been skeptical of implied rights of action in recent decades, most of them seemed to think that the statute went far enough to authorize the limited relief sought in the case before them, namely the right to invalidate a contract inconsistent with the statute.

A group of immigration judges on Wednesday afternoon urged the Supreme Court to leave in place a ruling by a federal appeals court that sent a dispute over a policy limiting their speaking engagements back to a federal trial court. The National Association of Immigration Judges told the justices that there was no need for them to step in because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had merely directed a federal district court in Alexandria, Virginia, “to conduct fact-finding that may inform its resolution” of the group’s challenge.