When all the male Justices are in the majority and all the female justices are in dissent.

In at least four cases, Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan were in dissent alone.


Today, the Court decided HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kavanuagh. Justice Barrett dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Here, the male Justices were in the majority, and the female justices were in dissent.

This sort of split has happened before. In 2012, I blogged about Blueford v. Arkansas. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan. The same split occurred in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson (2017), though Justice Gorsuch was recused. In Fernandez v. California (2014), Justice Ginsburg dissented joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.That same split occurred in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro (2011). I could not find any cases in which Kagan dissented, and was joined only by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

I could not find any cases in which Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg were the lone dissenters.

Update: Messerschmidt v. Millender (2012) evaded my search. The vote was 6-3. Justice Kagan wrote a solo dissent. Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent, joined by Justice Ginsburg. Utah v. Strieff (2016) also had the three female Justices in dissent, though the lineups were messy.

NEXT: Friday Morning SCOTUS Fun (Updated)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It hardly surprising that the 3 most liberal justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan voted together.

    Neither is it particularly that O’Connor and Ginsburg never were the only dissenter since they were not ideologically aligned.

    Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Barrett as the only dissenters would be something.

    1. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Barrett as the only dissenters would be something.
      Indeed, as it would seem to indicate the coming of the Messiah, what with the dead rising and everything.
      But perhaps you missed that HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn. had Sotomayor, Kagan and Barrett as the only dissenters.

      1. Especially since it’s not obvious why this case would cause a split along gender lines.

  2. Just shows women shouldn’t be judges.

    1. Indeed, since by definition these women were on the wrong side of the law.

  3. The worst part was that the male justices refused to even ask for directions.

    1. I want to know how the Justices stack up on parallel parking.

      Mythbusters took a crack at men vs women on parallel parking.

      They set up a parallel parking course. start with 100 points and deduct points for various errors.

      A group of 10 men and 10 women as test subjects.

      In the end there was little difference in the average of the men’s scores and the women’s score.

      The interesting thing is that the men were consistently mediocre and the women split evenly between near perfection and absolute disaster.

      The top five women scored in the 85-95 point range. The other five all scored 0.

  4. I am woman, hear me dissent
    With words too real to invent
    You may make fun of our sorority
    But wait until we have the majority
    Then every man will have to take a trip downtown
    If he fails to put the toilet seat down

  5. Speaking of the (diminishing) “all male” realm:

    An interesting Federalist Society CLE program this afternoon was striking because it featured a panel of five men (four White) and zero women.

    Do conservatives — including those at the remarkably White, overwhelmingly male Volokh Conspiracy — genuinely expect to be persuasive, influential, or relevant in modern America if they continue to operate in a myopically White, male, religious, heterosexual manner (presenting arguments steeped in backwardness and intolerance)?

  6. Thank goodness it hasn’t ever been the other way around.

Please to post comments