Kate Shaw, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with William Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown and the author of “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic,” to dissect and debate the state of the Supreme Court and the sweeping cases at the end of the court’s term.

Kate Shaw: Let’s start with the big picture. Have the emphatic six in the six-to-three splits that have dominated the last few weeks of decisions made clear that this court is one devoted — and increasingly nakedly so — to an ideological project?

William Baude: No way. In the past few days, the decisions on birthright citizenship (Trump v. Barbara), Election Day (Watson v. Republican National Committee), Federal Reserve independence (Trump v. Cook) and geofence warrants (Chatrie) — all on top of the tariffs decision from a few months ago (Learning Resources) — show that this is one of the most independent courts I can imagine at this stage of the second Trump administration.

Stephen I. Vladeck: Will and I have different definitions of “independent,” but maybe that tracks, given the demise of independent agencies. It’s obviously true that some of the court’s biggest rulings of the term didn’t put all six Republican appointees in the majority and all three Democrats in dissent, but a lot of them did — far more than last term or the term before.

Beyond that, I’m struck by how few rulings we saw with weird splits: There were 24 total rulings in cases argued this term that split the court 5-4 or 6-3, and the Democratic appointees were all on the same side in 23 of them. That’s not a coincidence. That one or two Republican appointees sometimes crossed over doesn’t prove a lack of ideology so much as it suggests that there are some lines even they wouldn’t cross.