Most analyses of Supreme Court justices focus on the merits docket, but a recent update provides insight into how President Trump's three appointees—Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—have voted on the interim and certiorari dockets over the past fifteen months.

Since March 2025, the review notes several key rulings where Justices Thomas or Alito would have granted or denied relief, with one or more of the Trump appointees taking the opposite position. For example, in 2025, Justices Thomas and Alito would not have blocked President Trump's removal of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act.

In the Howe case (2025), Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch allowed an Eighth Circuit ruling to stand, which found no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It was suggested that Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett might have hoped the Section 2 issue would dissipate, as the Band likely had no viable case after the Callais decision.

In Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts (2025), Justices Thomas and Alito would have reviewed the appeal of a student punished for wearing a shirt stating "There are only two genders." Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the denial of certiorari but wrote that "this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two." The Court subsequently took two cases on this issue in July 2026.

Additionally, in Snope v. Brown (2025), Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted a petition to review Maryland's ban on AR-15s, while Justice Barrett remained silent. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the denial of certiorari but expressed interest in addressing the matter in the near future.

This updated "wall of receipts" provides a clearer picture of the voting tendencies of President Trump's appointees on the Supreme Court beyond the merits docket.

Sources