In the first six years of the Roberts Court (OT05-OT10), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed seven amicus curiae briefs. Four dealt with religious liberty (Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao de Vegetal, CLS v. Martinez, Arizona School Tuition Organization v. Winn, and Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC), two addressed abortion (Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood and Gonzales v. Carhart), and one dealt with assisted suicide (Gonzales v. Oregon). The table below compares the Justices by whether they voted for the same party supported by the Bishops’ Conference as amicus curiae.
Justice Name |
Agreement with Bishops’ Conference as Percentage of Cases |
Agreement with Bishops’ Conference as Fraction of Cases |
Chief Justice Roberts (Catholic) |
100% |
7/7 |
Justice Scalia (Catholic) |
100% |
7/7 |
Justice Thomas (Catholic) |
100% |
7/7 |
Justice Alito (Catholic) |
100% |
4/4 |
Justice Kennedy (Catholic) |
71% |
5/7 |
Justice Stevens |
50% |
2/4 |
Justice Souter |
50% |
2/4 |
Justice O’Connor |
50% |
1/2 |
Justice Ginsburg |
43% |
3/7 |
Justice Breyer |
43% |
3/7 |
Justice Sotomayor (Catholic) |
33% |
1/3 |
Justice Kagan |
33% |
1/3 |
These statistics reveal a stark division between the Catholic and the non-Catholic Justices, a division that is likely to shape up more and more as one between the Republican appointees (all Catholic) and the Democratic appointees (one of whom is Catholic). The three cases in which the party supported by the Bishops’ Conference garnered the votes of the non-Catholic Justices were all unanimous decisions (Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao de Vegetal, and Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood). The party supported by the Bishops’ Conference did not attract the votes of a single non-Catholic Justice in any split decision.
As noted in connection with the earlier chart showing the same measure in the Rehnquist Court, the point of this measurement is not to demonstrate influence, but rather to define the universe of cases in which the Bishops have an interest in the outcome and to see how hospitable various Justices have been to the claims advanced by the parties supported by the Bishops’ Conference amicus curiae briefs.