Who Are the Three Liberal Supreme Court Justices: What Most People Get Wrong

You probably hear it every time a major case drops. "The 6-3 split." "The conservative supermajority." It’s basically the shorthand for how the highest court in the land operates right now. But honestly, just labeling people "liberal" doesn't really tell the whole story of who these women are or how they’re trying to navigate a court where they are, quite frankly, outvoted almost every single time.

When people ask who are the three liberal supreme court justices, they’re usually looking for names. Those names are Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. But if you stop there, you’re missing the actual drama happening behind the scenes in 2026. These three aren't some monolith. They don't always agree on how to be the opposition.

The Current Lineup: Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson

Right now, the "liberal wing" is composed entirely of women appointed by Democratic presidents. This is a first in U.S. history. We've got Sonia Sotomayor (Obama), Elena Kagan (Obama), and the newest member, Ketanji Brown Jackson (Biden).

They’re basically holding the line.

In a 6-3 court, the math is brutal. For the liberals to win a case, they have to convince at least two of the conservative justices to jump ship. Usually, that means targeting Chief Justice John Roberts or Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who sometimes show a more "institutionalist" streak. But more often than not, the three liberals find themselves writing what we call "dissents"—those long, sometimes spicy essays explaining why they think the majority is dead wrong.

Sonia Sotomayor: The "People's Justice"

Sonia Sotomayor is the senior member of this group. She joined back in 2009. If you want to talk about "lived experience," Sotomayor is the poster child. She grew up in the Bronx, lived in public housing, and was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes as a kid.

💡 You might also like: 39 Carl St and Kevin Lau: What Actually Happened at the Cole Valley Property

She's often called the "conscience of the court." Why? Because she’s the one most likely to write about how a dry, technical legal ruling actually hurts real people on the ground. Whether it’s police misconduct or the rights of the disabled, Sotomayor doesn't hold back. In recent years, her dissents have taken on a tone of genuine alarm. She’s famously warned about the "death of the administrative state" and the erosion of voting rights.

Elena Kagan: The Master Strategist

Then you have Elena Kagan. She’s... different. Before the court, she was the Dean of Harvard Law and the Solicitor General. She’s incredibly sharp and, frankly, funny. Kagan is known for writing opinions that a normal person can actually understand. She uses analogies, pop culture references, and clear-as-day logic.

Kagan is often seen as the "bridge-builder." For a long time, she was the one trying to find middle ground with the conservatives to peel off a vote here or there. But even her patience seems to be wearing thin. Lately, she’s been more vocal about her frustration with the court's "shadow docket"—those emergency rulings that happen without full briefing or oral arguments.

Ketanji Brown Jackson: The New Voice

Justice Jackson is the newest addition, replacing Stephen Breyer in 2022. She brought something the court hadn't seen in decades: experience as a federal public defender. That’s a big deal. Most justices come from backgrounds as prosecutors or corporate lawyers.

Jackson has hit the ground running. She’s been surprisingly active during oral arguments, sometimes speaking more than anyone else. She’s also pioneered a style called "progressive originalism." Basically, she argues that if you actually look at the original intent of the 14th Amendment (which was written to ensure equality for formerly enslaved people), it actually supports things like voting rights and affirmative action. She’s taking the conservatives’ favorite tool—originalism—and using it against them.

📖 Related: Effingham County Jail Bookings 72 Hours: What Really Happened

The Strategy Rift: How to Dissent

Here’s where it gets interesting. Even though they usually vote together, there’s a bit of a "vibe shift" happening among the three.

Recent reporting—including some deep dives by SCOTUS-watchers like Jodi Kantor—suggests there’s a debate over how they should handle being in the minority.

1. The Kagan Approach: Stay calm, stay inside the tent. Keep the language professional so you don't alienate the moderate conservatives you might need for the next case.
2. The Jackson Approach: Shout it from the rooftops. Use "demosprudence." This is the idea that a dissent isn't just a legal argument for the files; it’s a message to the public. Jackson has been increasingly "shrill" (according to her critics) or "unflinching" (according to her fans), using her voice to educate the public on what she sees as a dangerous rightward lurch.
3. The Sotomayor Middle Ground: She’s been around long enough to see both sides. She still values the institution, but she’s clearly worried. Her recent dissents, especially in cases involving the "shadow docket" or immigration, have been biting.

Why the "Liberal" Label is Kinda Overstated

We love labels. But "liberal" on the Supreme Court doesn't mean "Progressive Activist."

Honestly, by historical standards, Kagan and Sotomayor are pretty moderate. They believe in stare decisis—the idea that you should stick to past precedents unless there's a really, really good reason not to. They’re not looking to rewrite the Constitution every Tuesday.

The reason they look "liberal" is largely because the conservative majority has moved so far to the right, so fast. When the court overturns 50-year-old precedents like Roe v. Wade, anyone standing still looks like they're running in the opposite direction.

👉 See also: Joseph Stalin Political Party: What Most People Get Wrong

Does it matter that they're all women?

Kinda, yeah. It changes the dynamic of oral arguments. You’ve got three women who aren't afraid to cut through the jargon. During arguments about reproductive rights or workplace discrimination, they bring a perspective that was missing for, well, the first 200 years of the court's existence.

What to Watch for in the 2025-2026 Term

As we move through the 2026 term, keep an eye on how these three interact. We’re seeing cases on everything from "geofence warrants" to the power of federal agencies (the FTC and NIH are big targets right now).

Watch the dissents. If you see Jackson and Sotomayor signing onto a Kagan dissent, it usually means they’re trying to look unified. But if Jackson starts writing her own separate dissents—even when she agrees with the outcome—it’s a sign she’s trying to build a new legal philosophy for the future, one that might not bear fruit for twenty years.

Actionable Insights: How to Follow the 3 Justices

If you want to actually understand what Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are doing without the media filter, here’s how to do it:

• Read the Syllabus: When a big opinion drops, don't just read the headline. Go to the Supreme Court website and read the "Syllabus" (the summary). Then, skip to the very end to find the dissent.
• Listen to Oral Arguments: You can stream them live. It’s the best way to hear Justice Jackson’s questioning style or Kagan’s sharp wit in real-time.
• Follow SCOTUSblog: It’s the gold standard. They break down the "Stat Pack" every term, showing exactly how often the three liberals agree with each other (spoiler: it's a lot, usually over 90%).
• Look for "Demosprudence": Pay attention to when a justice uses a dissent to talk directly to you—the public—rather than just the other lawyers in the room. That’s where the real power of the minority lies.

The 6-3 split isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But the way the three liberal justices use their seats is shifting. They aren't just "the losers" of every vote; they are the architects of the legal arguments that will likely define the next generation of American law.

Stay informed by checking the court's calendar for upcoming decisions in the spring of 2026, as that is when the most controversial cases usually get settled. Watch for the 2026 "Stat Pack" to see if the agreement rates between the liberal wing and the "institutionalist" conservatives like Roberts or Barrett are actually growing or if the divide is becoming a permanent canyon.