The Times Australia
The Times World News

.

Supreme Court rulings always include the perspective of a white male, but often exclude viewpoints of Black and Latina justices

  • Written by David Orentlicher, Professor of Law and Co-Director, Health Law Program, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Supreme Court rulings always include the perspective of a white male, but often exclude viewpoints of Black and Latina justices

In recent decades, much progress has been made in diversifying the Supreme Court[1]. While only white males served as justices for more than 175 years[2], the court now includes three female justices, one Black and one Latina justice.

Despite the increased diversity, however, the court’s voting rules often exclude minority viewpoints.

Like most other courts, the Supreme Court decides its cases by a majority vote. If at least five of the nine justices agree on a resolution, they are able to determine the court’s decision and impose their preferred outcome.

If other justices disagree, they cannot ensure that their views are taken into account by the majority. They can only write a dissenting opinion to express their disagreement with the majority’s decision.

Two justices who are especially likely to have their views not reflected, and therefore must write dissenting opinions, are Sonia Sotomayor[3] and Clarence Thomas[4].

Consider the court’s cases from its 2019-20 term[5], not including non-controversial 9-0 decisions.

When there were disagreements among the justices, Sotomayor dissented in 44% of cases, according to the news site SCOTUSblog[6]. In those cases, the court’s decisions lacked the perspective of its only minority female member.

Similarly, Thomas also dissented in 44% of cases when the court vote was not unanimous[7]. In those cases, the court’s decisions lacked the perspective of its only minority male member.

No other justice’s voice was excluded as often as were those of Sotomayor and Thomas. And with five white male justices on the court, it’s numerically impossible for the court to render a decision that lacks the perspective of a white male justice.

Single opinions the norm

As a constitutional law scholar[8] who has written extensively about the Supreme Court[9], I believe there is a ready solution to this exclusion of minority viewpoints. Drawing from the example of jurors and the history of the court between 1801 and 1940, the justices could decide their cases by a unanimous vote.

Criminal juries decide their cases unanimously, and studies demonstrate[10] that, as a result, the majority gives greater consideration to minority viewpoints. Those in the minority participate more in the jury’s deliberations, and their perspectives play a greater role in shaping the jury’s decision.

The Supreme Court also could ensure minority participation by deciding its cases unanimously.

Between 1801 and 1940[11], the high court generally decided its cases with a single, consensus opinion. As Chief Justice John Marshall recognized[12] in 1801, the court strengthens its authority when it speaks in a unified voice. Hence, he established a norm for the court of consensus decisions.

As Marshall wrote[13], “The course of every tribunal must necessarily be, that the opinion which is delivered as the opinion of the court, is previously submitted to the judges; and, if any of the reasoning be disapproved, it must be so modified as to receive the approbation of all, before it can be delivered as the opinion of all.”

During Marshall’s first four years[14] as chief justice, all of the court’s opinions were issued for the court as a whole, with just one concurring opinion and no dissenting opinions.

Members of the 1943 Supreme Court.
Members of the Supreme Court pictured in 1943. Left to right, front row: Associate Justices Stanley F. Reed and Owen J. Roberts; Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, and Associate Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter. Back row: Associate Justices Robert H. Jackson, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy and Wiley B. Ruthledge. Bettmann/Getty Images[15]

Marshall’s successors maintained this norm of consensus[16] for most of the court’s history. By 1941, only about 8% of cases included a dissenting opinion.

But when Harlan Fiske Stone became chief justice in 1941, he encouraged the expression of dissenting viewpoints[17]. Stone believed that sound principles would result from “the clash of competing and sometimes conflicting ideas.”

Today, one or more justices dissent in more than half of the rulings[18].

Importantly, when single opinions were the norm, scholars have found that justices on both sides would move toward the other side[19] to reach consensus. Lead justices would shape their drafts to secure broad support from their colleagues. As a result, justices who initially disagreed with the majority were able to join their colleagues in a unanimous decision.

As the legal scholar Robert Post[20] has observed, Chief Justice William Howard Taft “was willing to go to extraordinary lengths to modify his own opinions to reach out to others.”

And even after 1940, justices often recognized the importance of consensus. Perhaps the most famous example occurred in 1954, when Chief Justice Earl Warren[21] was able to forge a unanimous decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education that struck down segregated schools.

Consensus opinions

Unanimous decisions are better decisions. No single justice has a monopoly on the perfect legal interpretation – they all have their blind spots. The collective wisdom of the full bench is superior to that of a mere majority of justices.

Empirical research on group decisions confirms this.

As one important study found in 1996[22], “Heterogeneous groups outperform homogeneous groups on tasks requiring creative problem solving and innovation, because the expression of alternative perspectives can lead to novel insights.”

When people with different perspectives make decisions together, they can identify solutions that none of them acting alone would have recognized. Their different ideas can combine to identify new approaches that better serve the public interest.

[Over 115,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today[23].]

Majority voting allows for decisions based on a narrower rather than broader range of perspectives. It is incoherent to value a diversity of perspectives and then employ a decision-making rule that frequently disregards an important part of that diversity. This is especially the case when the Supreme Court can decide critical issues by a 5-4 margin.

By restoring a norm of unanimous decisions, the Supreme Court would give voice to all of its justices and the unique perspectives that each of them brings.

As Chief Justice John Roberts has observed[24], “The rule of law benefits from a broader agreement.”

References

  1. ^ Supreme Court (www.cnn.com)
  2. ^ more than 175 years (www.americanprogress.org)
  3. ^ Sonia Sotomayor (www.nytimes.com)
  4. ^ Clarence Thomas (apnews.com)
  5. ^ court’s cases from its 2019-20 term (www.scotusblog.com)
  6. ^ SCOTUSblog (www.scotusblog.com)
  7. ^ vote was not unanimous (www.scotusblog.com)
  8. ^ constitutional law scholar (law.unlv.edu)
  9. ^ Supreme Court (theconversation.com)
  10. ^ studies demonstrate (scholarship.law.cornell.edu)
  11. ^ Between 1801 and 1940 (scholarship.law.cornell.edu)
  12. ^ Chief Justice John Marshall recognized (chicagounbound.uchicago.edu)
  13. ^ wrote (scholarship.law.cornell.edu)
  14. ^ first four years (oconnorlibrary.org)
  15. ^ Bettmann/Getty Images (www.gettyimages.com)
  16. ^ norm of consensus (scholarship.law.cornell.edu)
  17. ^ the expression of dissenting viewpoints (scholarship.law.cornell.edu)
  18. ^ more than half of the rulings (www.scotusblog.com)
  19. ^ move toward the other side (papers.ssrn.com)
  20. ^ Robert Post (digitalcommons.law.yale.edu)
  21. ^ Chief Justice Earl Warren (constitutioncenter.org)
  22. ^ important study found in 1996 (doi.org)
  23. ^ Sign up today (theconversation.com)
  24. ^ John Roberts has observed (www.washingtonpost.com)

Read more https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-rulings-always-include-the-perspective-of-a-white-male-but-often-exclude-viewpoints-of-black-and-latina-justices-168819

Times Magazine

Building an AI-First Culture in Your Company

AI isn't just something to think about anymore - it's becoming part of how we live and work, whether we like it or not. At the office, it definitely helps us move faster. But here's the thing: just using tools like ChatGPT or plugging AI into your wo...

Data Management Isn't Just About Tech—Here’s Why It’s a Human Problem Too

Photo by Kevin Kuby Manuel O. Diaz Jr.We live in a world drowning in data. Every click, swipe, medical scan, and financial transaction generates information, so much that managing it all has become one of the biggest challenges of our digital age. Bu...

Headless CMS in Digital Twins and 3D Product Experiences

Image by freepik As the metaverse becomes more advanced and accessible, it's clear that multiple sectors will use digital twins and 3D product experiences to visualize, connect, and streamline efforts better. A digital twin is a virtual replica of ...

The Decline of Hyper-Casual: How Mid-Core Mobile Games Took Over in 2025

In recent years, the mobile gaming landscape has undergone a significant transformation, with mid-core mobile games emerging as the dominant force in app stores by 2025. This shift is underpinned by changing user habits and evolving monetization tr...

Understanding ITIL 4 and PRINCE2 Project Management Synergy

Key Highlights ITIL 4 focuses on IT service management, emphasising continual improvement and value creation through modern digital transformation approaches. PRINCE2 project management supports systematic planning and execution of projects wit...

What AI Adoption Means for the Future of Workplace Risk Management

Image by freepik As industrial operations become more complex and fast-paced, the risks faced by workers and employers alike continue to grow. Traditional safety models—reliant on manual oversight, reactive investigations, and standardised checklist...

The Times Features

Is our mental health determined by where we live – or is it the other way round? New research sheds more light

Ever felt like where you live is having an impact on your mental health? Turns out, you’re not imagining things. Our new analysis[1] of eight years of data from the New Zeal...

Going Off the Beaten Path? Here's How to Power Up Without the Grid

There’s something incredibly freeing about heading off the beaten path. No traffic, no crowded campsites, no glowing screens in every direction — just you, the landscape, and the...

West HQ is bringing in a season of culinary celebration this July

Western Sydney’s leading entertainment and lifestyle precinct is bringing the fire this July and not just in the kitchen. From $29 lobster feasts and award-winning Asian banque...

What Endo Took and What It Gave Me

From pain to purpose: how one woman turned endometriosis into a movement After years of misdiagnosis, hormone chaos, and major surgery, Jo Barry was done being dismissed. What beg...

Why Parents Must Break the Silence on Money and Start Teaching Financial Skills at Home

Australia’s financial literacy rates are in decline, and our kids are paying the price. Certified Money Coach and Financial Educator Sandra McGuire, who has over 20 years’ exp...

Australia’s Grill’d Transforms Operations with Qlik

Boosting Burgers and Business Clean, connected data powers real-time insights, smarter staffing, and standout customer experiences Sydney, Australia, 14 July 2025 – Qlik®, a g...