WASHINGTON — In what legal scholars are calling "the most honest assessment of American jurisprudence since someone first said 'justice is blind,'" a new study from Yale and Columbia economists has quantified what foreclosed homeowners, underpaid workers, and anyone who's ever faced a corporation in court already knew: the Supreme Court of the United States maintains a robust 70% customer satisfaction rating among its wealthiest clients, while delivering what the researchers diplomatically termed "suboptimal outcomes" for everyone else.

The study, provocatively titled "Ruling for the Rich," found that Republican-appointed justices now vote for the wealthier party in cases 70 percent of the time, up from 45 percent in 1953—a 25-point swing that would make any hedge fund manager weep with envy at such reliable returns.

Federal judges, upon assuming the bench, take a solemn oath to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich." At current rates, that oath has a 70-30 success rate—or, as the study's authors delicately noted, "a failure rate that would result in immediate termination in any profession not protected by lifetime tenure and a constitutional amendment."

Chief Justice John Roberts, who during his 2005 confirmation hearings famously promised Congress he would side with "the little guy" if "the Constitution says so," has presided over a court where the Constitution has apparently said so with decreasing frequency. The study's data suggests the Constitution speaks primarily to those who can afford the cover charge.

"From 45% to 70% pro-wealthy rulings in one generation—that's not judicial philosophy," observed Professor Fiona Scott Morton of Yale, lead author of the study. "That's a leveraged buyout wearing robes."

The study's methodology involved Yale undergraduates coding thousands of Supreme Court decisions to determine which party was wealthier and which way the ruling went—a task the researchers acknowledged contained "a certain ironic poetry" given that the students themselves are accumulating six-figure debts while categorizing decisions about economic justice they may never personally experience.

"Economists published a peer-reviewed study proving the Supreme Court favors the wealthy," noted Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe in a widely shared social media post. "Somewhere, a scientist is preparing to confirm that gravity favors down."

The study found that the partisan gap between justices on economic issues has widened dramatically. In 1953, Republican and Democratic appointees were "statistically indistinguishable" in their treatment of wealthy versus poor litigants. Today, Republican appointees favor the wealthy party 70% of the time, while Democratic appointees favor the less wealthy party 65% of the time.

"Put another way," the study's authors wrote with the kind of understatement that passes for academic humor, "the Republican appointees have become more pro-rich at roughly twice the rate that Democrat appointees have become more pro-poor."

Legal scholars reached for comment offered a range of reactions, from "this confirms my priors" to "my priors feel very confirmed right now." Professor Jonathan Adler of William & Mary, who was quoted in the original news coverage as skeptical of the study, could not be reached for additional comment, though sources close to him suggested he was "definitely going to have thoughts about the methodology."

The implications of the study extend far beyond academic interest. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent last June, warned of "the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens." The new data suggests that perception may, in fact, be a remarkably accurate reading of reality.

When asked to comment on the study's findings, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court declined, citing the institution's longstanding policy of not commenting on pending studies, completed studies, or studies that make them look bad. The spokesperson did note that the Court's gift shop remains open to visitors of all income levels, and that the marble steps are free to climb regardless of net worth.

The study is scheduled to be discussed at the next meeting of the Federalist Society, where attendees will reportedly explore whether the findings represent "originalism working as intended" or "a coincidence that happens to benefit our donors."

As for Chief Justice Roberts, who turns 71 this month, the study's authors noted that his 2005 promise to the Senate Judiciary Committee technically remains in effect. "The little guy," they wrote, "is still waiting to hear back."

— 30 —