Here is what Trump's three Supreme Court justices — Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — have actually produced. According to a detailed analysis conducted for the Washington Post, the sharply conservative court they enabled is the first since at least the 1950s to reject civil rights claims in a majority of cases involving women and minorities. That's not spin. That's a dataset. The share of cases won by the side advocating an expansion of civil rights has fallen to 44 percent. The streak of successive courts expanding civil rights protections — which began at the dawn of the civil rights era — is over.
Voting Rights Are Effectively Dead at This Court
Seven percent. That is the rate at which voting protections have been upheld under this court's composition. Not 50%. Not 30%. Seven. For context: the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed because the Supreme Court of that era was more willing to protect voting rights than state governments were to honor them. The current court has inverted that entirely. If you are trying to expand or defend voting access — for any community, in any state, under any theory — your odds at this court are essentially nil.
Religious Rights Win 98% of the Time
Religious liberty cases go the other direction with equal ferocity. The analysis found religious rights claims are favored at a 98% rate. This is not a principled balance of constitutional rights — it is a systematic thumb on the scale. Religious exemptions are being used to carve out spaces where civil rights, anti-discrimination law, and public accommodation requirements don't apply. Every time that happens, someone else's rights get smaller. That's the trade. The court has decided whose rights matter.
On April 1, Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments in person — the first sitting president to do so — for the case challenging his executive order to end birthright citizenship. If the court rules in his favor, it would strip automatic citizenship from children born in the U.S. to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents. More than 250,000 babies born in the U.S. each year would not be citizens. The ruling is expected later this term. Given the court's record on civil rights, the direction of the wind is not subtle.
This Is What Stolen Seats Cost
This court exists because Mitch McConnell refused to hold hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016, citing an election-year principle he then abandoned entirely when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died 46 days before the 2020 election. It exists because Trump rushed Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation through in 8 days. It exists because Gorsuch was seated in a stolen seat and Barrett was seated in a broken one. And now it is systematically dismantling protections that took 70 years to build, at a rate that historians will study for another 70 years.
First court since the 1950s to reject civil rights claims in a majority of cases. Three Trump appointees. Two stolen seats. The receipts are in the rulings.
Sources
- Washington Post / Daily Record: Analysis finding first court since 1950s to reject civil rights claims in majority of cases; 44% civil rights win rate; 7% voting protections upheld; 98% religious rights favored; five terms since Trump's third justice joined.
- PBS NewsHour: Trump attended Supreme Court oral arguments April 1 — first sitting president to do so; birthright citizenship case details; 250,000+ babies per year would lose citizenship if order upheld.