Is the emergency docket really for emergencies?

Lawyers for groups challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze billions of dollars in foreign-aid funding on Friday afternoon urged the Supreme Court to leave in place a ruling by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that requires the government to commit to spending $4 billion in funds by Sept. 30. President Donald Trump asked Congress in late August to claw back the funds – a maneuver known as a “pocket rescission” – and has told the justices that his administration may not commit the money as U.S. District Judge Amir Ali has ordered.

Justice, Democracy, and Law is a recurring series by Edward B. Foley that focuses on election law and the relationship of law and democracy.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Confusion abounds over the Supreme Court’s call for reargument in Louisiana v. Callais, the latest chapter in the dispute over Louisiana’s efforts to draw a new congressional map in the wake of the 2020 census. As explained in more detail elsewhere on SCOTUSblog, the justices heard oral arguments in March on whether the drawing of a second majority-Black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. But on the last day before the justices’ summer recess, the court issued an order setting the case for oral arguments in the 2025-26 term.

The Supreme Court has been on summer recess for more than two months, but you wouldn’t know it if you’ve been following the emergency docket. Since late June, the justices have issued dozens of orders and opinions in response to emergency applications, many of which came from the Trump administration. Just this week, for example, the justices announced their decisions in three emergency docket cases, including a major dispute over immigration stops in Los Angeles and surrounding counties.

In Dissent is a recurring series by Anastasia Boden on Supreme Court dissents that have shaped (or reshaped) our country. 

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

I. America the defiant 

On Aug. 22, 1984, about 100 protesters marched down the streets of downtown Dallas during the Republican National Convention decrying President Ronald Reagan’s policies. At first, the protesters conducted a “die-in,” during which they fell to the floor and moaned for several minutes to mimic the effects of a nuclear attack. Next, they entered a bank and tore up deposit slips and dumped out potted plants. They continued down the block, conducting die-ins and repeating chants until they reached City Hall, where Gregory Lee Johnson took a flag that a fellow protester had removed from a nearby flagpole, doused it with kerosene, and set it on fire.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday left in place a ruling by a federal appeals court that requires a South Carolina school district to allow a transgender student to use the boys’ bathroom while the teen’s challenge to a state law that requires students to use the bathrooms that correspond to their biological sex “at the time of birth” continues.

In a brief, unsigned order, the court emphasized that in denying South Carolina’s request to pause the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, it was not weighing in on the underlying merits of the challenge filed by the teen, known only as John Doe. Instead, the court wrote, “it is based on the standards applicable for obtaining emergency relief from this Court” – such as whether the state would be permanently harmed if the lower court’s ruling were not put on hold.