Supreme Court Justices Debate Handling of Trump-Era Emergency Cases

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a rare public exchange, Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh debated the court's handling of emergency requests from the Trump administration to quickly greenlight a wide range of policies, even as lower courts were still considering their legality. Jackson argued the court's actions represented a departure from past practice and were "not serving the court or our country well", while Kavanaugh defended the court's obligation to rule on such applications, though he shared some of Jackson's frustrations.

Why it matters

The debate highlights growing concerns about the Supreme Court's increasing reliance on the "shadow docket" to make consequential rulings without the typical deliberative process, raising questions about transparency and the court's role in the separation of powers.

The details

During an annual lecture series, Justices Jackson and Kavanaugh engaged in a rare public back-and-forth about the court's handling of emergency requests from the Trump administration. Jackson argued the court had departed from past practice by often allowing new policies to take effect through the "shadow docket" process, rather than maintaining the status quo as it had previously. Kavanaugh acknowledged frustrations with the speed of such emergency cases, but said the court was obligated to rule on the applications it received.

• Since President Donald Trump began his second term, the administration has filed a flood of emergency applications with the justices.
• The debate took place during an annual lecture series at a federal courthouse in Washington, D.C.

What they’re saying

What’s next

The debate highlights an ongoing tension within the Supreme Court over the use of the "shadow docket" and the court's role in reviewing executive actions, which is likely to continue as the justices navigate future emergency requests.