Overview
- The peer‑reviewed study, titled "Ruling for the Rich" by Yale’s Fiona Scott Morton and Columbia’s Andrea Prat and Jacob Spitz, was released January 5.
- Researchers classified litigants by likelihood of wealth and scored votes as favoring the rich when outcomes would directly move resources to the wealthier party.
- Findings show a deep partisan divergence, with Republican‑appointed justices siding with wealthier parties about 70% of the time versus roughly 45% for conservative justices in 1953‑era courts.
- The results build on earlier scholarship showing higher business win rates in the Roberts Court compared with the Warren era, using a broader measure than business‑versus‑nonbusiness cases.
- Coverage links the data to concerns flagged by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson about perceptions of preferential access for moneyed interests and to potential effects on pending campaign‑finance fights.