What patterns emerge from the voting records of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on the Court’s interim and certiorari dockets over the past year?
Most assessments of how the justices vote tend to emphasize the merits docket. Yet a far larger set of votes deserves attention. In March 2025, I published a thorough look at how the three Trump appointees had voted on the Court’s interim docket and on certiorari since they joined the bench. Here, I present an updated, fifteen-month record for those decisions.
Rulings on the Interim Docket
This compilation covers recent interim-docket rulings in which Justices Thomas or Alito would have granted or denied relief, and at least one of the Trump appointees aligned with the opposite side. I resume the account from where my previous tally ended in March 2025.
- A.A.R.P v. Trump (2025) – Justices Thomas and Alito would not have blocked President Trump’s removal of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act. Justice Kavanaugh concurred with the majority’s view, while Justices Gorsuch and Barrett did not participate or offered no opinion.
- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have allowed the Eighth Circuit ruling to take effect, holding that there is no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett are very likely to have voted to grant a stay. In May 2026, the Court remanded the case to the Eight Circuit in light of Callais. My hunch was that Kavanaugh and Barrett hoped the Section 2 issue would fade, given the Band likely lacks a viable case after Callais.
- National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would have permitted the executive branch to block certain DEI grants to NIH. However, Justice Barrett issued only a partial stay, preventing the majority from obtaining a full fifth vote.
- South Carolina v. Doe (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted an injunction pending appeal to permit a school to limit bathroom access based on biological sex. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett did not signal their dissent.
- Trump v. Illinois (2025) – Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch would have allowed President Trump to deploy the National Guard to Illinois to aid in immigration enforcement. Justice Kavanaugh joined the Court’s ruling against Trump. Justice Barrett was silent.
- Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) – Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh, together with the Chief Justice, granted a partial victory to parents challenging California’s “gender transition” policy for students. Justices Thomas and Alito would have granted the parents’ petition in full. Justice Gorsuch (likely) joined the per curiam opinion, but did not author a separate opinion.
- GenBioPro v. Louisiana (2026) and Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana (2026) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have allowed the lower-court ruling to stand, which blocked the mailing of mifepristone. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett likely voted to stay the Fifth Circuit’s judgment.
- Blanche v. Perlmutter (2026) – Only Justice Thomas would have permitted President Trump to remove the head of the U.S. Copyright Office. After Slaughter, the Court denied the application rather than granting a GVR.
Denials of Certiorari
This portion covers certiorari denials where Justices Thomas and/or Alito would have voted to grant the petition.
- Speech First, Inc. v. Whitten (2025) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have reviewed Indiana University’s response team for “bias incidents.”
- Hittle v. City of Stockton, California (2025) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have granted a petition to revisit the McDonnell Douglas balancing framework under Title VII.
- Apache Stronghold v. United States (2025) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have reviewed a case concerning the federal government’s destruction of an Indian sacred site. (Justice Alito was recused.)
- L. M. by and through Morrison v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts (2025) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have reviewed the appeal of a student punished for wearing a shirt declaring “There are only two genders.”
- Snope v. Brown (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted a petition to review Maryland’s ban on AR-15s. Justice Barrett was silent. Justice Kavanaugh joined in the denial of cert, but wrote that “this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” The Court would later hear two such cases in July 2026.
- GHP Management Corporation v. City of Los Angeles (2025) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have reviewed a pandemic-era eviction moratorium as a Takings Clause issue.
- Veneno v. United States (2025) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have reviewed a challenge to the federal government’s plenary powers over Indian tribes.
- Hutson v. United States (2025) – Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have intervened to terminate a longstanding and unlawful prison-building order.
- Alabama v. Powell (2026) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have summarily reversed a criminal case from Alabama, finding no violation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
- United States v. Carter (2026) – Justices Thomas and Alito would have reviewed a District of Columbia policy that instructs police to consider a defendant’s race.
- Doe v. Hochul (2026) – Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have reviewed the case of a religious healthcare worker who was terminated for declining the COVID-19 vaccine.
- Dershowitz v. Cable News Network (2026) – Justices Thomas and Gorsuch would have granted review to reassess the “actual malice” standard for defamation.
I plan to offer commentary on this compilation in a future piece.
Please reach out by email if you think I’ve overlooked any cases.
