As the Supreme Court wraps up the current session, the eyes of the nation are upon the nine Americans in black robes leading the Judiciary. Public opinion of the Court has sunk to historic lows as both Republicans and Democrats describe partisan judges, the actual decisions written by the Court tell a different story.

Back-to-back decisions regarding guns reveal a court with a diverse range of legal philosophies and several justices – notably conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson – regularly crossing the partisan aisle to vote with the other side.

Of the 45 decisions issued by the Court this term, only 13 have been decided on a 6-3 vote. Even within that framework, some of those 6-3 votes involved Gorsuch or others crossing partisan divides.

Notable among this session, Garland v. Cargill and the Rahimi cases reveal a court attempting to refine their previous rulings and doing so from a multitude of philosophical lenses. In Rahimi, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch each wrote an opinion and each rooted their decision differently. Thomas’ lone dissent focused on the interpretation of due process, while Gorsuch and Barrett agreed on the ruling, but presented different legal reasoning on why.

This Court term, the Justices issued a 9-0 decision in FDA v. Alliance confirming access to the abortion pill mifepristone. This case was a first step in refining the Justices’ interpretive framework after the Dobbs decision returned the regulation to the states. The Court also ruled 7-2 preserving a Trump era corporate tax expansion.

The Courts have historically been criticized by conservatives for “activist judges,” on numerous social issues, but the death of liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the appointment of a third Justice by former President Donald Trump gave conservatives a reliable majority.