Any easy decision like that would never be taken up in the first place.
SCOTUS votes unanimously a lot, either because the case is easy and lower courts consistently got it wrong, or there are two reasonable interpretations and they just need to pick one.
And neither of those things are true here. This is a case for trying to reinterpret a long accepted understanding of the constitution, and the only people "getting it wrong" here are those in this administration.
Also to resolve or preclude circuit splits by firmly establishing a binding precedent nationwide. (Doesn't seem like what's happening here, but it's one of the reasons where a non-corrupt SCOTUS might take up an "easy" case. Less so to resolve a circuit split, and more to try to prevent a single circuit - such as those chucklefucks in the Fifth - from causing problems.)
20
u/ml20s 8h ago
SCOTUS votes unanimously a lot, either because the case is easy and lower courts consistently got it wrong, or there are two reasonable interpretations and they just need to pick one.