Ketanji Brown Jackson Criticizes Supreme Court's Use of Emergency Docket

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has sharply criticized her colleagues for the rapid pace at which the court considers cases on its emergency docket, stating that this practice has been "noticeably less restrained, especially with respect to pending cases that involve controversial matters."

Jackson made these remarks Thursday during a speech at the University of the District of Columbia’s law school, according to The Hill. The emergency docket, also known as the shadow docket or interim docket, allows parties to request the Supreme Court's swift intervention in lawsuits, enabling the temporary suspension of lower court rulings. This process can resolve matters within days, weeks, or months, offering a significantly faster, though often temporary, path to court relief compared to the full review of a case, which involves extensive briefing schedules and oral arguments.

"Why is it that one party should get a fast pass to the Supreme Court of the United States, when so many other parties are queued up, waiting patiently for the court’s attention?" Jackson questioned.

She further warned, "If we’re not careful, the emergency docket can and will become an end run around the standard review process, a special avenue that certain privileged litigants can use selectively."

Jackson’s comments come as the Trump administration has submitted 40 emergency applications to the Supreme Court since the beginning of the president's second term. Through this expedited process, the Supreme Court has approved Trump's dismissals of career employees and high-profile terminations of Democratic appointees. It has also limited nationwide injunctions and facilitated controversial deportations and immigration enforcement actions.

According to Politico, the Trump administration has seen a success rate of approximately 80% on its emergency docket appeals since the start of the president's second term.

The majority on the Supreme Court has frequently made decisions along ideological lines with minimal explanation for its emergency rulings, contrasting with the detailed, often lengthy, final orders that include concurring opinions and dissents.

Jackson also articulated on Thursday that parties seeking emergency intervention should be required to demonstrate impending harm, rather than the court granting stay applications based on potential errors made by lower courts. "Significant real-world harms can follow Supreme Court stay rulings, and when the court’s orders do not acknowledge that reality, they seem oblivious and ring hollow," she stated, as reported by Courthouse News Service. "We cannot expect the public to have faith in our judicial system if, without clear explanation, we are consistently greenlighting harmful acts that do real damage to litigating plaintiffs without a court decision fully and fairly determining the lawfulness of that challenged conduct on the merits."