The story from the Supreme Court that most catches our attention today is the case that could be called Unity v. Division. It pits those who argue that America is hopelessly divided against the sunny partisans of finding our way to agreement. This came into view this morning when the Supreme Court decided no fewer than five cases in which all nine justices were unanimous. No dissents, quarrels, or tears. Bravo, we say. Brava. Bravi.

We understand that the run of unanimous cases this morning might be a flash in the pan. It strikes us, though, as a newsworthy moment in a country that seems intent on pulling itself apart over the big beautiful budget bill, closing our borders to travelers from 12 countries, facing hysteria at our greatest universities, and going to the mat over religion — all feeding a campaign in our courts against our own president.

Take some heart, though, from, say, this case — whether a straight woman has to face extra hurdles to prove that she has been discriminated against in her employment. No, quoth the court in Ames v. Ohio. It is a fine outcome to a dispute that probably never should have had to go to the high bench. Its best feature, at least to us, is that the opinion of the unanimous court was written by its most liberal justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Then again, too, you’ve got your case of Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. It’s about a dispute between Mexico and the famed gunmaker. It’s over whether Smith & Wesson is to blame for the violence in our southern neighbor. The court, to oversimplify, said no, rejecting arguments that gunmakers were aiding “gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers.” The justice who wrote the opinion for a unanimous court is the liberal Elena Kagan.

Next is your Catholic Charities v. Wisconsin. That reversed the Badger State’s policy denying Catholic Charities certain tax breaks. Wisconsin exempts from paying unemployment compensation taxes nonprofit organizations “operated primarily for religious purposes” and “operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.” Yet Wisconsin had balked at exempting Catholic Charities.

In a unifying touch, the justice who wrote the opinion for the unanimous court is Sonia Sotomayor — agreeing on this hot button issue with Justices Alito and Thomas and the others in between. Next up: In Devis v. Antrix, the court decided unanimously that a Mauritius-based firm can pursue a judgment against India. The case touched on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the extent to which parties are required to have ties to America.

In the fifth unanimous case of the morning, the court held in Blom Bank v. Honickman that some victims of terrorism committed by Hamas could not refile their lawsuit against a Lebanese bank that was accused of aiding the terror group. The riders of the Second Circuit had found that the terrorism victims could reopen their case, but only “extraordinary circumstances” could have warranted that step, Justice Thomas wrote for the court.

We understand that this outburst of unanimity isn’t the biggest story in the world. Between a quarter and half of Supreme Court cases tend to be decided unanimously. We get that the feud between unity and division isn’t over. Yet at a time when the nation’s political rifts seem to be more dire than usual, the court’s justices are managing to find common ground. Let President Trump, and both parties in Congress, take note. This editorial stands adjourned.