Supreme Court Justice warns against overuse of emergency appeals
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Supreme Court's frequent intervention in emergency cases imposes 'institutional costs' and gives certain parties an unfair advantage. She noted the court has been less restrained than when she clerked decades ago, particularly in controversial matters. Her remarks came as the Trump administration filed its 40th emergency application since the president took office.
Jackson delivered her remarks at the University of the District of Columbia's annual Joseph L. Rauh Jr. Lecture, questioning why certain litigants receive expedited access to the high court while others wait in the standard queue. She referenced a 2025 dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor describing the Trump administration's use of the emergency docket as being on "speed dial."
The same deportation case cited in Sotomayor's dissent returned to the court hours before Jackson's speech. Because the case originated in Massachusetts, Jackson received it by default and has ordered responses by Monday without immediately intervening. The administration's 40th emergency application reflects a pattern Jackson says undermines ordinary judicial review, with Jackson frequently issuing solo dissents against these interventions.
The Supreme Court's expanding use of its emergency docket could reshape how federal policy disputes are resolved, potentially favoring repeat litigants with resources to file frequent appeals. If the pattern continues, lower court rulings may carry less weight, and public confidence in the judiciary's even-handedness could erode. Affected parties include federal agencies, state governments, and individuals whose cases may be delayed or overshadowed by expedited interventions.