How the Supreme Court’s Inconsistent Approach to Granting Emergency Relief Will Exacerbate, Rather Than Mitigate the Disruption Its Emergency Stay Policy Is Supposed to Address

Authors

Harvey L. Reiter, Stinson, LLP

Volume

2025

First Page

1

Last Page

21

Publication Date

2025

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The federal government has used the Supreme Court’s emergency or “shadow” docket to great effect this past year, securing stay after stay of lower court rulings that had blocked many of the President’s executive orders. But the Court’s rulings have come, almost invariably, without any explanation of its reasoning. And its opaque and uneven rulings have also come at a potential cost to the Court’s credibility. This Article illustrates the uneven nature of the Court’s rulings by contrasting two lines of cases: (1) the Court’s stays of lower court rulings restoring to their positions FTC, NLRB, EEOC, and MSPB members who had been fired by the President without cause and (2) its ruling denying expedited relief to importers who have been harmed by the massive tariffs the President has imposed on them. The Article urges the Court to be more transparent in its shadow docket rulings to bolster public confidence in the Court.

Recommended Citation

Harvey L. Reiter, How the Supreme Court’s Inconsistent Approach to Granting Emergency Relief Will Exacerbate, Rather Than Mitigate the Disruption Its Emergency Stay Policy Is Supposed to Address, 2025 Cardozo L. Rev. De-Novo 1 (2025).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/de-novo/115