The latest term of the U.S. Supreme Court, although not as groundbreaking as previous years, has further clarified the political leanings of the Roberts Court, revealing a deep conservative streak. This term’s decisions may lack the bombshell impact of prior rulings, such as the elimination of the constitutional right to abortion or the curtailment of affirmative action, but they continue a significant rightward shift.

The Supreme Court, traditionally seen as above the fray of partisan politics, decided 42% of its cases unanimously this term. However, this figure masks the ideological divisions that emerge in high-stakes cases. For example, the Court's conservative majority upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care and supported parental rights to exempt children from school lessons conflicting with their religious beliefs. These decisions highlight a 6-3 split along conservative-liberal lines, underscoring the influence of ideology in pivotal cases.

While routine cases like Soto v. United States, concerning combat-related special compensation, and Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., dealing with trademark infringement, are decided without ideological leanings, they are not the focus of public or political scrutiny. These cases, though crucial for legal clarity and order, do not stir the same public and political passions as those involving broader constitutional questions and societal values.

A comparative look at France’s judicial system illustrates the unique position of the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike France, where different courts handle ordinary, constitutional, and administrative cases, the U.S. Supreme Court combines these functions. This blend makes the ideological orientations of the justices particularly significant in constitutional matters.

Since Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, the Court’s conservative super-majority has been solidified. Occasionally, justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Barrett show nuance in their opinions, but the conservative bent remains dominant, capable of deciding outcomes even with occasional defections.

One of the more controversial aspects of the Court's recent tenure is its treatment of cases related to the Trump administration. Decisions such as Trump v. CASA, which limited the scope of federal court injunctions against presidential policies, suggest a normalization of Trump’s contentious policies. Dissenting opinions in such cases highlight a concern that the Court may be inadvertently supporting the undermining of judicial checks on executive power.

The Roberts Court’s approach could be seen as cautious, aiming to preserve judicial authority without confronting the executive head-on. However, as authoritarian tendencies become more apparent, this strategy risks enabling further erosion of democratic norms.

In essence, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts is demonstrating a pattern that aligns more with conservative ideologies, possibly seeing the Trump administration as a conventional conservative governance. This alignment raises questions about the Court’s role and effectiveness in safeguarding constitutional democracy amid rising authoritarianism.