According to Empirical SCOTUS, this Supreme Court term has been atypical in terms of dissents so far. The number of dissents will likely grow before the end of the term, however, as there are still 30 argued cases that have yet to be decided.

So far this term, the liberal justices have dissented in 5 percent of decisions. Before this year, the lowest rate of dissents during the Roberts Court was in 2014, when the justices dissented in 6.8 percent of cases. The 2021–2022 term brought a significantly higher rate of dissents than usual: by the end of last May, the liberal justices had dissented at a rate of 33 percent when compared to the total decisions made, the highest rate of dissents ever reached during John Roberts’ tenure as chief justice. This term has also brought more consensus of another kind than last year: over 50 percent of decided cases this year have been unanimous.

In addition, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter in Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters on June 1. This is the first instance of a first-term justice issuing a solo dissent in a merits case since Justice Clarence Thomas did so in 1991.

Earlier this year, the Kentucky legislature passed a law allowing plaintiffs or defendants in lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes or executive branch policies to request a change of venue to a different, randomly selected circuit court. The law is being challenged in the Kentucky Supreme Court, and several civil rights organizations recently filed an amicus brief asking the court to strike down the law as unconstitutional.

Historically, cases challenging state government would be heard in Franklin County, the seat of state government, which has been called “an unfavorable venue” by Kentucky State Sen. Jason Howell (R), who sponsored the bill. After the law was passed, the president of the Kentucky Circuit Court Judges Association said it would lead to an increased workload for certain judges, particularly those in jurisdictions with only one judge per circuit.

This legislation is part of a pattern of state legislatures attempting to alter the operations of state courts. Last year, Alabama introduced a similar bill that would have required lawsuits challenging statewide redistricting plans as unconstitutional to be heard by a specially selected three-judge panel rather than in the Montgomery County Circuit Court, but the bill did not advance.

Several states are considering raising salaries for state supreme court justices following advocacy efforts expressing concerns about underpayment.

Michigan Supreme Court justices were recently awarded a 7 percent pay raise and $10,000 in expense allowances after Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement testified that “inflation has eroded our salaries substantially.” Last month, Idaho Supreme Court Justice John Stegner announced his upcoming retirement and credited pay disparities between state supreme court justice salaries and private sector compensation as the reason he is leaving the bench. Justices in Texas and North Dakota, among other states, have also asked for salary increases this year.

According to the National Center for State Courts, the average state supreme court justice salary as of January 2023 was $194,549. California has the highest compensation at $282,177, and West Virginia has the lowest at $149,600. In comparison, U.S. Supreme Court justices make $285,400 as of 2023.