SCOTUSgami

A thread to clarify my standard for a SCOTUSgami: In the spirit of other -gami’s, they shouldn’t be too frequent. To achieve this, I’ve chosen to only count individual pieces of writing that are joined by unique sets of justices.

@steve_vladeck Agreed that the terminology isn't straightforward, though I struggle to immediately think of another concise phrase for it. I certainly welcome any suggestions for improvements!

@SCOTUS_gami It’s your dime, but then it’s not the “lineup” that’s the SCOTUSgami, right? I think most folks would think the term refers to the vote count…

Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (5-21-2026) Dissent: Kagan No SCOTUSgami. The last time this lineup occurred was in a dissent in United States v. Skrmetti on June 18, 2025.

@skittering97 Worth considering. I'll probably keep it how it is for the time being, but there will be a lot of time between terms to consider other ways of doing it. I also think the interest of Kagan's lone dissent is partly captured by the majority being a SCOTUSgami.

@SCOTUS_gami Principal opinions (incl majorities) are only compared to other principal opinions. That way principal solo dissents don't get mixed up with solo concurrences as happened here. Non-principal opinions get compared to everything, as you currently do.

A thread to clarify my standard for a SCOTUSgami: In the spirit of other -gami’s, they shouldn’t be too frequent. To achieve this, I’ve chosen to only count individual pieces of writing that are joined by unique sets of justices.

@skittering97 @steve_vladeck From what I can tell it doesn't have quite the specificity I'd like it to have. Skrmetti, for example, has 8 distinct lineups if you account for justices joining opinions in part, and I don't think I could parse that from the Wash U data.

@SCOTUS_gami @steve_vladeck Was the Wash U database insufficient? I thought that's what Lee, Epstein, MQ scores use

@steve_vladeck Hopefully that clears up any questions!

@steve_vladeck So far, I have data from the 2015 term onwards, but I am actively working to include more. Any opinion lineup that includes Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, or Jackson is covered by the data, and that accounts for a vast majority of the possible lineups.

@steve_vladeck The last time she wrote a lone dissent before that was in Luis v. US (3-30-2016); 5-3 opinion, but that time she did not join the other dissent.

@steve_vladeck I’ve chosen to look at individual pieces of writing in determining SCOTUSgamis. So, while Skrmetti was indeed 6-3, Kagan actually wrote a separate dissent, in addition to partially joining Sotomayor’s. By that criterion, it is not a SCOTUSgami.

@mnmcsofgp @tracewoodgrains A related point of interest is that in Parrish v. US (6-12-2025), Jackson wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment that was joined *only* by Thomas, which is the only time that lineup has happened.

@tracewoodgrains Just out of curiosity, I tried to find all the cases where Jackson and Thomas concurred when it wasn't unanimous. Mallory was the only case I could find. I'm sure there are others, but kinda fun!

Tracking unique lineups in SCOTUS decisions is a great bit for an account.

This opinion was written by Justice Jackson. Out of the 70 times this lineup has occurred, Jackson has been the author 11 times. Only Sotomayor, with 12, has written more.

M & K Employee Solutions, Inc. v. Trustees of the IAM Nat. Pension (5-21-2026) Majority: Unanimous No SCOTUSgami. The last time this lineup occurred was in the majority in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC on May 14, 2026.