The Supreme Court’s Civil Rights Streak

Six 9–0 rulings in one month from a divided court. Here’s what it means.

In one of the most ideologically fractured moments in American political and legal history, the U.S. Supreme Court just did something extraordinary. And almost no one is talking about it.

Over the past month, the Court handed down six unanimous decisions. Not just any rulings—these were full 9–0 opinions on cases involving disability rights, government accountability, workplace discrimination, and excessive police force. All decided in favor of expanded civil liberties. All without a single dissent.

This is the same Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, the same Court with a 6–3 conservative majority, and the same Court expected to rule this summer on Donald Trump’s immunity, the limits of federal agency power, and state abortion bans.

So what gives?

Is the Supreme Court having a sudden progressive awakening? Hardly. But this moment—this civil liberties cluster of unanimous rulings—deserves close attention. It may tell us more about the Court’s internal strategy, public image, and the political storm it sees on the horizon than any single 5–4 decision ever could.

---

The Cluster: What Happened

Between mid-May and mid-June, the Supreme Court released six 9–0 decisions that collectively affirm a range of civil liberties and accountability standards. Taken together, they form a startling and telling burst of consensus on issues typically defined by division.

Here’s what the Court ruled, in plain terms:

• Disability Rights (A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools)
  The Court made it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act. No more procedural detours, just direct access to justice.

• Workplace Discrimination (Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services)
  White male employees alleging race and gender discrimination don’t face higher legal hurdles. The Court reaffirmed that civil rights protections apply equally, regardless of group identity.

• FBI Raid Liability (Martin v. United States)
  A family wrongfully raided by federal agents can sue the government. The justices rejected the argument that “policy discretion” shields federal misconduct from accountability.

• Police Use of Force (Barnes v. Felix)
  In cases of excessive force, courts must consider the entire interaction, not just the final seconds. A rebuke to the “split-second” defense that often shields police from scrutiny.

• Religious Nonprofit Exemptions (Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin)
  The Court sided with a Catholic nonprofit seeking unemployment tax exemption, signaling that religious organizations with public missions can still qualify for constitutional protections.

• Gun Manufacturer Immunity (Mexico v. U.S. Gunmakers)
  Though gunmakers remain protected from liability under U.S. law, the Court issued a narrow ruling that avoids expanding those protections, keeping the door open for reform.

Each of these cases could’ve sparked partisan division. Instead, they united the justices. Although some decisions are controversial with certain groups, they mark a commitment to the law and equality.

These weren’t fringe rulings. They’re precedents that reshape access to justice, clarify civil rights protections, and set limits on unchecked power across both public and private institutions.

---

The Bigger Picture

On its own, a unanimous Supreme Court ruling isn’t rare. In fact, nearly half of all decisions in recent terms have been 9–0 or nearly unanimous. What is rare—virtually unprecedented—is for six of those decisions to arrive in the span of a month, all affirming civil liberties.

To understand why that matters, look at the trendlines:

• This term, roughly 52% of the Court’s rulings have been unanimous. That’s consistent with recent years.

• However, most of those decisions tend to be dry, involving procedural dismissals, jurisdictional clarifications, or low-impact statutory cases.

• The six-ruling streak from mid-May to mid-June? These weren’t about footnotes and technicalities. These were about rights, and they landed one after another, without dissent.

Legal scholars are taking notice. Even libertarian analyst Walter Olson called the trend surprising, noting that several of these could have been “ideologically polarizing” but weren’t. “[It’s] like a harmony squad showed up,” he remarked.

And it's not just about ideological consensus. It’s about public signaling. Media outlets from across the spectrum, including the Washington Examiner and Deseret News, have highlighted the flurry of 9–0 rulings. They conclude that the Court wants to be perceived as less divided than the public perception suggests.

In a term that will likely end with contentious rulings on Trump’s legal exposure, state abortion bans, and the limits of federal power, these cases serve another function entirely.

They are the Court saying: We can still agree. We are still legitimate. We still protect rights.

And that makes this more than a legal anomaly. It’s a calculated display of unity.

---

Strategic Timing

The Supreme Court’s term is cyclical, but its timing is never accidental.

June is always busy. It's when the most politically sensitive cases drop. What’s different this year is the sequence. Before delivering rulings that could reshape executive power, reproductive rights, and the future of federal regulation, the Court delivered a run of unity.

It’s not hard to see the logic.

In the coming weeks, the Court is expected to issue decisions on:

• Whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution

• The legality of severe state-level abortion bans

• Challenges to transgender healthcare laws

• The future of Chevron deference, which could dismantle the regulatory state

Each of these decisions has the potential to further erode public trust in the Court. According to recent polling, public confidence, especially among Democrats and independents, is already near historic lows.

So what better way to soften the blow than to preface those rulings with a civil rights winning streak?

Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck has noted the Court's current legitimacy strategy, suggesting some justices may be “worried about how much capital they have to expend.” That’s a polite way of saying: they know what’s coming, and they’re trying to cushion the fall.

These six rulings, then, serve a dual purpose. Legally, they reinforce protections for individuals and narrow state power. Politically, they paint a picture of unity and restraint, a Court that still believes in rights, not just ideology.

In that light, this streak becomes less about sudden agreement and more about strategic positioning.

It’s the quiet before the storm, but also the stagecraft.

---

Why It Matters (to the Left)

Progressives are used to seeing this Court as an adversary, and often for good reason. Dobbs. Bruen. The dismantling of affirmative action. The near-erasure of federal regulatory power. The list is long.

So when six unanimous rulings suddenly land in favor of civil liberties, the instinct might be skepticism. Or silence. But that would be a mistake.

Because these are real wins, and they’re happening on progressive terrain.

• Disability justice: The Court just made it easier for families to sue schools that fail to accommodate disabled students.

• Racial equity: It reaffirmed that everyone has a right to protection from discrimination, not just certain identity groups.

• Police accountability: It dismantled the “split-second” defense, allowing excessive force cases to consider the full context of violence.

• Government overreach: It said federal agents aren’t above the law when they raid the wrong house or harm innocent people.

• Gun reform and religious rights: It threaded careful lines, keeping gunmaker protections in place, but inviting future legislative action, affirming religious nonprofit rights without turning them into political wedge cases.

This is not the Court turning liberal, but it is the Court, at least briefly, ruling in favor of human dignity, access to justice, and civil protections, on issues the left has long championed.

As University of Chicago professor Sarah Konsky reminds us, it's easy to overlook full-term merits rulings when emergency docket chaos dominates the headlines. However, ignoring these victories is a luxury that progressives can't afford, especially when they offer real, immediate legal leverage and a counternarrative to judicial nihilism.

Call it legitimacy theater. Call it strategic optics. But don’t call it meaningless.

Because when the highest court in the land hands you half a dozen unanimous civil rights rulings, you plant a flag and push forward.

See previous reporting on the Supreme Court here:

June Judgment Day: SCOTUS's Upcoming Rulings

SCOTUS is Considering Birthright Citizenship. Or Are They?

---

What the Other Unanimous Cases Aren’t

To be clear, these six cases aren’t the only unanimous rulings the Court has issued this term.

As of mid-June, the justices have handed down around 22 unanimous decisions, roughly half the Court’s total merits rulings this year. On the surface, that may sound like business as usual. And in a technical sense, it is.

But here’s the difference: most of those other unanimous decisions were procedural, narrow, or legally routine.

They involved:

• Dismissals of improperly granted appeals

• Clarifications of foreign sovereign immunity

• Statutory interpretation in terrorism finance claims

• Jurisdictional tweaks with minimal broader impact

They rarely made headlines and for good reason.

The civil liberties cluster, by contrast, cuts deeper. These cases shape how police are held accountable, how children with disabilities are treated in schools, and how workers pursue justice when they face bias. They’re the kinds of rulings that affect real people’s lives, not just lawyers’ briefs.

That’s what makes this moment so striking. The Court always delivers some level of unanimous rulings. What it rarely does—what it almost never does—is drop six full-throated rights-affirming rulings in the space of a month.

This isn’t about unanimity in theory. It’s about what the justices chose to unify around, and when they chose to do it.

---

Reading the Court in Layers

Six unanimous civil liberties rulings. One deeply divided Court. Zero dissents.

This streak isn’t just an institutional curiosity. It’s a moment of real consequence. Whether driven by judicial principle, strategic optics, or both, these rulings demonstrate that even this Supreme Court, in this political moment, remains capable of affirming rights that progressives have long defended.

But don’t mistake the consensus for a change of heart. These decisions aren’t signs of ideological drift. They’re signs of something more calculated: a Court that understands the stakes of its own legitimacy, and is carefully managing its image ahead of a summer of legally explosive—and politically radioactive—decisions.

The headlines will soon return to the expected battles: presidential immunity, abortion, and the future of federal regulation. But before that storm, we got something else. Something the justices, perhaps deliberately, wanted us to see.

A civil rights streak. A rights-forward cluster. A message of unity—just in time.

The real question now isn’t whether the moment was real. It’s whether progressives are ready to recognize it, use it, and push it forward before the window closes.

---

CTA

If this moment matters to you, share this piece. Forward it. Post it. Let’s make sure these wins don’t get buried under the weight of everything else the Court is about to unleash.

Want more analysis like this focused on overlooked victories, not just inevitable defeats? Subscribe, share, and join the conversation in the comments. What do you think this Court is signaling with its sudden show of unity?

And don’t stop at understanding these rulings. Use them. Cite them in your organizing. Discuss them in your classrooms, meetings, or social media posts. Progress isn’t always loud. Sometimes it arrives in 9–0 silence. Don’t waste it.

Bibliography:

• Chung, Andrew. “Trump Finds Victories at the Supreme Court in Rush of Emergency Cases.” Reuters, June 13, 2025.

• “How Supreme Court Employees Reveal Bias Doesn’t Need ‘Background Circumstances’ Standard.” Callabor Law, June 5, 2025.

• “How Supreme Court Revives Excessive‑Force Suit Against Officer in Deadly Houston‑Area Traffic Stop.” SCOTUSblog, May 15, 2025.

• “How Supreme Court Sides with Catholic Social Ministry over Tax Exemption.” SCOTUSblog, June 5, 2025.

• Mann, Ronald. “Unanimous Court Rebuffs Higher Standard for Discrimination Claims by Children with Disabilities.” SCOTUSblog, June 12, 2025.

• “How Argument About Adequate Education for a Disabled Child Gets Heated.” SCOTUSblog, April 30, 2025.

• “Unanimous Supreme Court Rules Against Mexico in Guns Case.” Texas Public Radio, June 5, 2025.

• “Supreme Court Unanimously Blocks Mexico’s Lawsuit against U.S. Gunmakers.” The Washington Post, June 5, 2025.

• “US Supreme Court Backs Catholic Charity Group in Unemployment Taxes Case.” The Guardian, June 5, 2025.

• “Supreme Court Sides with Catholic Charity in Religious‑Rights Case over Unemployment Taxes.” AP News, June 5, 2025.

• A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279, 595 U.S. ___ (2025). Opinion by Roberts, June 12, 2025.

• Mann, Ronald. “Unanimous Court Rebuffs Higher Standard for Discrimination Claims by Children with Disabilities.” SCOTUSblog, June 12, 2025.

• Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 595 U.S. ___ (2025). Opinion by Jackson, June 5, 2025.

• Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Rules for Straight Woman Who Claims She Was Subjected to Reverse Discrimination.” SCOTUSblog, June 5, 2025.

• Barnes v. Felix, 595 U.S. ___ (2025). Opinion by Kagan, May 15, 2025.

• Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Revives Excessive‑Force Suit Against Officer in Deadly Houston‑Area Traffic Stop.” SCOTUSblog, May 15, 2025.

• Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, 595 U.S. ___ (2025). Opinion by Sotomayor, June 5, 2025.

• “How Supreme Court Sides with Catholic Social Ministry over Tax Exemption.” SCOTUSblog, June 5, 2025.

• Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 595 U.S. ___ (2025). Opinion by Kagan, June 5, 2025.

• “How Supreme Court Allows Family’s Suit Against Government for ‘Wrong House’ Raid to Continue.” SCOTUSblog, June 12, 2025.

• Martin v. United States, 605 U.S. ___ (2025). Opinion by Gorsuch, June 12, 2025.

• Howe, Amy. “Justices Reject Mexico’s Suit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers.” SCOTUSblog, June 5, 2025.