SCOTUS' Vow to Treat Rich, Poor Equally Is Falling Short

A new economic study argues that if you want to predict a Supreme Court ruling these days, follow the money. Researchers from Yale and Columbia say the court has increasingly ruled in ways that benefit wealthier parties over poorer ones, diverging from the judicial oath to do "equal right to the poor and to the rich," reports the New York Times. Their paper, "Ruling for the Rich," finds a sharp partisan split: By 2022, Republican-appointed justices sided with the richer party in about 70% of cases, while Democratic appointees did so about 35% of the time. In the 1950s, the two groups were "statistically indistinguishable," each favoring the richer side in roughly 45% of such cases.

The new work builds on earlier research showing a rising win rate for businesses at the high court. One major study found that over the century through 2021, companies won 41% of the time overall—but 63% before the current court led by Chief Justice John Roberts since 2005, compared with 29% before the liberal Warren court in the '50s and '60s. The new study goes broader, labeling parties as rich or poor "according to their likelihood of being wealthy" and deeming a vote pro-rich if it shifts resources toward the wealthier side—such as employers over workers, businesses over consumers or regulators, and rulings that weaken the social safety net.

The researchers' approach, carried out by Yale undergraduates following a detailed protocol, has drawn mixed reviews. Supporters say it usefully quantifies patterns long observed anecdotally, including decisions that expanded the role of money in politics and limited labor and regulatory power. Skeptics, however, question assumptions such as treating most regulation as favoring the poor and worry that non-lawyers are making difficult judgment calls.

One critic says the findings simply show that "Republican appointees are more conservative than they used to be." Roberts, at his 2005 confirmation hearing, framed the issue differently: His obligation, he said, is not to the "little guy" or the "big guy," but to what the Constitution requires in each case. Quartz has more on what this could mean for cases in 2026 and beyond.