The U.S. Supreme Court just demonstrated unusual unanimity by issuing four decisions with all nine justices in agreement on Thursday. These rulings arrived amid ongoing concerns about public confidence in the nation's highest court.

According to Newsweek, the court delivered unanimous opinions in four separate cases: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Soto v. United States, Martin v. United States, and Rivers v. Guerrero. The decisions addressed issues ranging from disability rights in education to combat veteran benefits.

The court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, often faces criticism for voting along ideological lines. However, data shows unanimous decisions are more common than many Americans might expect, with 44 percent of cases decided unanimously in 2023 and 50 percent in 2022.

Falling public confidence

Recent polling reveals a troubling trend in Americans' view of the Supreme Court. Only 47 percent of Americans expressed a favorable opinion of the court, while 51 percent hold an unfavorable view, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey.

These numbers represent a dramatic decline from 1987, when 76 percent of Americans viewed the court favorably and just 17 percent held unfavorable opinions. The shift reflects increasing public perception that the court has become politicized.

Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to believe justices are failing to keep personal politics out of their decisions. This partisan divide has deepened following several high-profile rulings that split along ideological lines, including the 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Key decisions explained

In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Chief Justice John Roberts authored an opinion establishing that schoolchildren with disabilities don't need to prove "bad faith or gross misjudgment" when bringing discrimination claims. The case involved a student with epilepsy who was denied evening instruction accommodations.

The Court also ruled unanimously in favor of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, determining that the six-year limitations period under the Barring Act doesn't apply to claims brought under the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute. This allows Soto to pursue retroactive benefits for service-related PTSD.

In Martin v. United States, justices unanimously ruled that a Georgia family can proceed with a lawsuit against the federal government after FBI agents mistakenly raided their home. The decision found that the Federal Tort Claims Act doesn't shield the government from liability in such cases.

Legal experts respond

Patrick Jaicomo, who represents the plaintiffs in Martin v. U.S., expressed satisfaction with the Court's decision and commitment to continuing the legal fight.

"We look forward to continuing this fight with the Martins in the Eleventh Circuit and making it easier for everyday people to hold the government accountable for its mistaken and intentional violations of individual rights," Jaicomo stated.

Roman Martinez, lawyer for Ava Tharpe in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, told Reuters: "[The ruling is] a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country...We are grateful to the Supreme Court for its decision holding that these children should enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Americans with disabilities."

Political science professor Michael Salamone explained that unanimous rulings might reflect strategic thinking by the justices. "The justices may also believe they have more credibility when they rule unanimously, and they may therefore strategically compromise to achieve a united front," he told Newsweek.

Implications for court credibility

The cluster of unanimous decisions comes at a critical time for the Supreme Court's public image. With confidence in the institution at historic lows, these rulings may help counter perceptions of a deeply divided court.

However, experts like Salamone note that unanimous decisions often receive less media attention than divisive ones. "The Supreme Court tends to rule unanimously more frequently than a lot of people expect...I find that this is because divided cases get more coverage—not only are the issues that divide the justices often more politically salient, but also the partisan divisions on the Court themselves are newsworthy," he explained.