Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the court faces strain deciding complex, closely divided cases stemming from emergency appeals involving the Trump administration.
“None of us enjoys this,” the conservative justice said, referring to the pressure of resolving consequential cases that reach the court on an accelerated timetable.
Kavanaugh’s remarks came during a rare public appearance alongside Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, where the two justices offered sharply different views of the Supreme Court’s handling of emergency appeals involving the Trump administration.
“We have to have the same position regardless of who is president,” said Kavanaugh, nominated and approved to the Supreme Court during Trump’s first term.
Rare Public Disagreement Between Supreme Court Justices
The exchange unfolded at a judicial lecture in Washington attended by judges, lawyers and legal scholars — an unusual setting for sitting Supreme Court justices to openly debate each other’s views.
Jackson, 55, a frequent dissenter in recent emergency rulings, sharply criticized the court’s growing willingness to step into cases at early stages, particularly when the Trump administration seeks immediate relief after losing in lower courts.
“The administration is making new policy … and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided,” Jackson said, drawing applause from the audience. She described the trend as “a real unfortunate problem.”
Debate Over the Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’
The disagreement centers on the Supreme Court’s use of emergency orders — often called the “shadow docket” — which allow the justices to issue rapid decisions without full briefing or oral arguments.
In the past year, the court’s conservative majority has repeatedly granted emergency requests that allowed Trump administration policies to move forward after being blocked by lower courts. Those decisions have affected issues ranging from immigration enforcement to control over federal agencies and the federal workforce.
Jackson, appointed to the Supreme Court by former Democratic President Joe Biden, warned that such early intervention risks distorting the judicial process and influencing how lower‑court judges handle cases still under review.
She said the court is “creating a kind of warped” legal process by stepping in at preliminary stages and effectively signaling how disputes may be resolved before arguments are fully developed.
Jackson Warns Court Is ‘Not Serving’ the Country
Jackson said the court’s expanded role in emergency litigation affects more than individual cases, shaping the behavior of trial judges who must rule knowing the Supreme Court may quickly override them.
“I just feel like this uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved … is a real unfortunate problem,” she said. “It’s not serving the court or this country well.”
Kavanaugh Defends Emergency Rulings as Inevitable
Kavanaugh, 61, pushed back against the criticism, arguing that emergency appeals are not unique to the Trump administration and are a byproduct of modern governance.
As Congress has struggled to pass legislation, he said, administrations of both parties increasingly rely on regulations and executive actions, many of which quickly end up in court.
“Some are lawful, some are not,” Kavanaugh said, adding that critics often raised fewer objections when emergency rulings allowed Biden administration policies to take effect while litigation continued.
This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. At Newsweek, ours is different: The Courageous Center—it’s not “both sides,” it’s sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy: Ad-free browsing, exclusive content and editor conversations. Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
