In an opinion written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court ruled that plaintiffs in such cases must show that racial animus was an essential reason for treating a company or individual differently in a business transaction, and not simply that race played some role in the decision.

“A plaintiff bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of its injury,” Gorsuch wrote.

All nine justices endorsed the bulk of Gorsuch’s opinion, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took exception to one footnote and emphasized that discrimination at any point in the contracting process should be actionable.

Another ruling by the court Monday produced an unusual ideological alignment.

Justice Elena Kagan, a Democratic appointee, joined with her five GOP-appointed colleagues to allow states to use a narrow definition of insanity when assessing whether a defendant should be held responsible for his or her crimes.

Kagan wrote for the six-justice majority in the case, ruling that the State of Kansas did not have to absolve a murder defendant said to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong.

“Defining the precise relationship between criminal culpability and mental illness involves examining the workings of the brain, the purposes of the criminal law, the ideas of free will and responsibility," Kagan wrote.

“It is a project for state governance, not constitutional law," she added.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, with Breyer arguing that the court was ignoring “seven hundred years of Anglo-American legal history” by endorsing punishment for people who could not perceive that their actions were wrong.

The court also issued a 7-2 decision Monday that gives federal appeals courts greater authority to review rulings by immigration courts and a Justice Department appeals panel that oversees those courts. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Gorsuch joined all of their Democratic-appointed colleagues in the decision favoring broad oversight of executive branch actions in immigration cases, while Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

In a fourth case, the justices said states are not subject to suits for copyright infringement under current law. However, they left open the question of whether Congress could retool the law to create such liability for states.

The justices also announced Monday that when they hear arguments in a trio of cases about efforts to subpoena President Donald Trump’s financial records, they will hear not only from a personal lawyer for Trump but also from an attorney representing the official position of the U.S. government. Those cases were set to be argued next Tuesday but have been put off indefinitely due to the coronavirus crisis.

The next scheduled arguments at the court are set for April 20, but whether those will take place as planned is unclear. Six of the justices are age 65 or over, which puts them at high risk of serious complications or death from the virus, heightening concerns about the court convening in person.