Justices of sharply different legal views have been dinner-party friends, skeet-shooting pals, and opera companions. Ketanji Brown Jackson s predecessor, Stephen Breyer, and Clarence Thomas ideological opposites but quite friendly would whisper and tell jokes during oral arguments. The one-liners and jibes of Antonin Scalia, the ornery conservative, drew laughs from his conservative and liberal colleagues alike. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg grew frail in her final year, Thomas would offer his arm to ease her descent from the bench. Rancor has always animated the justices opinions, but it was limited to pen and paper. On the bench, civility reigned.
Not anymore. I ve been attending Supreme Court oral arguments since 2013. As The Economist s SCOTUS correspondent, I ve watched arguments in the most contentious cases of the past decade a Church-state fight in 2013; the Affordable Care Act and same-sex marriage showdowns in 2015; clashes over affirmative action (2015), labor unions (2018), voting rights (2018), and abortion (2020); and dozens of others. Only the justices are privy to the mood in their private conference room where cases are discussed after the hearings. But what I have seen this term on open display inside the courtroom is an obvious departure from the collegiality of years past.