There are plenty of noncontroversial Supreme Court rulings that barely if ever make it into the news. There are also highly-contentious SCOTUS rulings that are accused of being partisan-political (abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, presidential “official actions,” etc.)
What I want to ask is, are there any examples (especially in the modern era) of SCOTUS rulings were were 1) controversial and pissed off a lot of people but also 2) were “calling balls and strikes” as opposed to being a right-wing or left-wing political agenda?
Maybe not recent enough for you but National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977) is a good example of calling balls and strikes. Nobody wants to side with Nazis (at least, not in 1977), but the 1st Amendment required SCOTUS to do so.
I’m having trouble distinguishing this from a request for SCOTUS rulings I (or other potential participants) agree with in principle. Or even more difficult to field, a request for rulings you agree with in principle.
The Court purports to call balls and strikes every case, with rare exceptions involving federal common law. All Court rulings are, ostensibly, above partisan political agendas.
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. 367 (2024).
Group of doctors sue FDA, arguing the agency erroneously approved Mifeprex to terminate pregnancy. The drug was approved in 2000, again in 2016 for use later in pregnancy, and most recently in 2021 with less stringent requirements. District court agrees and suspends FDA approvals. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals lets the original FDA approval stand but upholds suspension of more recent changes. Rule: plaintiffs must demonstrate injury for the case to qualify as a “case or controversy” under Article III of the constitution. Because plaintiffs do not prescribe the drug on moral grounds, and because laws protect them from liability for refusing to prescribe this class of drug, they can not demonstrate injury. A unanimous Supreme Court reinstates 2021 FDA approval and dismisses case for lack of standing.
I’d say Bostock V. Clayton County was a good one that fits. It’s controversial because anything that gives rights to LGBTQ people is seen as ‘controversial’ by the right, but the basic question of ‘is this discrimination based on sex?’ was pretty straightforward because it appears the decision (and certainly the majority opinion) relied purely on a simple reading of the law and whether the same actions or behaviors, undertaken by a person of a different sex, would or would not have been treated the same.