Justice Jackson Criticizes Supreme Court Conservatives Over 'Oblivious' Emergency Orders

The court's newest justice delivered a lengthy assessment of the court's use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration.

Apr. 16, 2026 at 1:04am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

A moody, cinematic painting of an empty Supreme Court chamber, with a single beam of light casting long shadows across the ornate wooden benches, conveying a sense of quiet contemplation and the weight of the court's decisions.The Supreme Court's use of emergency orders to advance controversial policies has sparked a backlash from some justices, exposing deep ideological divides within the nation's highest court.Washington Today

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has criticized her conservative colleagues' use of emergency orders to allow the Trump administration to implement controversial policies, calling the orders 'scratch-paper musings' that can 'seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.' Jackson said the court has become less restrained in addressing emergency stay applications, especially on divisive policy issues. She spoke publicly about the issue, aiming to be 'a catalyst for change' on the court's approach.

Why it matters

Justice Jackson's public criticism of the Supreme Court's use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration highlights growing concerns about the court's ideological divide and its willingness to intervene in high-profile policy disputes. Her comments suggest a rift within the court over the appropriate use of these expedited procedures, which can have significant real-world impacts.

The details

In a lengthy speech at Yale Law School, Justice Jackson delivered a sustained attack on her conservative colleagues' use of emergency orders to allow the Trump administration to move forward with controversial policies on immigration, federal funding cuts, and other topics. She said the orders often lack explanation and amount to 'back-of-the-envelope, first-blush impressions' that lower courts are then required to apply. Jackson also pushed back on the court's view that preventing the president from implementing a policy is a harm that often outweighs the harm to challengers, arguing 'the president of the United States, though he may be harmed in an abstract way, he certainly isn't harmed if what he wants to do is illegal.'

  • Justice Jackson delivered the speech on Monday, April 15, 2026 at Yale Law School.
  • Last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor also criticized the court's use of emergency orders in an event at the University of Alabama.

The players

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

The newest justice on the Supreme Court, who has frequently dissented from the court's conservative majority on the use of emergency orders.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor

A liberal justice who has also criticized the court's conservative majority for its approach to emergency orders.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh

A conservative justice whose opinion in an immigration case was referenced by Justice Sotomayor in her recent remarks.

President Donald Trump

The former president whose administration has benefited from the Supreme Court's use of emergency orders to implement controversial policies.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Those scratch-paper musings' be applied by lower courts in other cases.”

— Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Supreme Court Justice

“The president of the United States, though he may be harmed in an abstract way, he certainly isn't harmed if what he wants to do is illegal.”

— Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Supreme Court Justice

What’s next

Justice Jackson's public comments on the court's use of emergency orders are likely to fuel further debate and scrutiny of the court's ideological divisions and its approach to high-profile policy disputes. It remains to be seen whether her remarks will lead to any changes in the court's practices.

The takeaway

Justice Jackson's criticism of the Supreme Court's conservative majority for its use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration highlights the growing ideological divide on the court and raises questions about the appropriate role of the judiciary in resolving divisive policy issues. Her comments suggest a desire to shift the court's approach to be more restrained and cognizant of the real-world impacts of its decisions.