The Supreme Court increasingly favors wealthy interests. Here's what that means for American business

Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court increasingly sides with wealthy interests — and the gap is widening fast.

A new study by Yale and Columbia economists, first reported by the New York Times, examined how justices vote in cases where economic consequences split along wealth lines. It found that Republican-appointed justices now favor wealthier parties far more often than they did in the 1950s. Meanwhile, Democratic appointees have moved in the opposite direction, although that shift has been much less dramatic.

In the 1950s, justices appointed by both parties sided with wealthy interests about 45% of the time. By 2022, Republican appointees voted for the wealthier party 70% of the time.

Democratic appointees? 35%.

The researchers argue this isn't about isolated cases or shifting legal doctrine. They say it's more a systemic matter, meaning a pattern that plays out fairly predictably across disputes that involve workers versus management, consumers versus corporations, and regulators versus industry.

The study arrives as public trust in the court hits multidecade lows and scrutiny intensifies over decisions that have weakened unions, expanded the role of money in politics, and narrowed or limited federal regulatory power.

Supporters say the research confirms what many have long suspected — that the legal system favors those with greater economic power, or “big guys” over “little guys,” colloquially speaking. Critics, for their part, counter that defining "rich" versus "poor" involves making subjective judgments, and the data may merely reflect a more consistently conservative court rather than an explicit pro-wealth bias.

For corporations and large businesses, the benefits are straightforward. In a scenario in which a majority-conservative court can be reliably expected to side with wealthy interests—that is, the current scenario, which will only be changed by justices’ deaths or retirements — legal costs can be modeled more reliably, and outcomes predicted with greater confidence.

The pattern matters for cases already on the docket. Legal challenges to “for cause” removal protections are working their way through the courts, raising questions about the future independence of agencies insulated from direct presidential control—with direct implications for monetary policy independence and market confidence. Other cases address tariffs, whether state courts can bypass federal jurisdiction in suits against energy companies, and whether limits on political-party spending violate free speech.

But the stakes extend far beyond 2026, of course. That’s because today's rulings on wealth and power become tomorrow's legal boundaries—meaning these court decisions are likely to shape government regulation, consumer protections, and executive authority for decades into the future.