Rule for Thee but Not for Me: From Roberts to Vinson, a Statistical Analysis of the Role of Religion in the Supreme Court

In recent years, the Supreme Court has increasingly taken up cases involving religious freedom, reflecting growing societal and legal tensions surrounding the role of religion in public life. The Roberts Court, for instance, has ruled in favour of religious organisations far more frequently than its predecessors (approximately 81% of the time compared to approximately 50% before) and has been the centre of several high-profile rulings in favour of mainstream Christian organisations. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the legal facts align with public perception—or more pointedly, prove whether or not there truly exists a statistically significant “religious preference” on the Court (and towards whom). In this paper, I examine the outcomes of First Amendment religious cases in the Supreme Court over the past 80 years, focusing on a statistical analysis of case outcomes and justices' voting patterns. The study evaluates the success rates of the parties involved and the effective impacts of decisions relative to the broader Christian mainstream to discern the true nature of these cases over time. Notably, I identify a shift under the Roberts Court, characterised by a unique level of religious fervour in its rulings. Through quantitative analysis of judicial decisions and voting records, this research highlights trends in case outcomes and their implications for religious freedoms and establishment clause interpretations.