Liberal justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have recently stated that the court is making progress in providing written explanations for rulings on its emergency docket. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson both recently commented that the court has increased the frequency of issuing reasons for these fast-track decisions, which critics often refer to as the "shadow docket." Justice Jackson stated at a University of the District of Columbia lecture on September 24, 2026, that providing such explanations is a "positive development" that helps the public and lower courts understand the court’s principles.
The emergency docket allows applicants to seek immediate relief in pending lawsuits before they are fully litigated. While historically used for matters like execution stays, the docket has seen a significant increase in high-stakes policy disputes during the second Trump administration. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed the administration’s 40th emergency application this week, a number that exceeds the combined total of eight such cases filed during the 16 years of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. The current administration matched the Biden administration’s four-year total of 19 emergency requests within its first five months.
The shift toward providing more written rationale follows years of internal and external criticism regarding the lack of transparency in emergency orders. Justice Kagan noted during a congressional appearance this summer that the court has done a "better job in the recent past" of explaining its decisions where appropriate. However, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh has previously cautioned against "snap judgment" written opinions, noting last year that emergency cases are in initial stages and written rationale might not reflect the court's final views.
The scale of this shift is reflected in the volume of emergency litigation involving the executive branch. The current administration has filed 40 emergency applications in less than two years, compared to just eight filed by two prior administrations over 16 years. According to a survey of 1,455 U.S. adults conducted in August 2026, 83% of Americans believe it is important for the court to explain the reasons for emergency decisions, while only 36% of the public reported being aware that the court decides cases in this manner. The increase in written opinions provides a more detailed record for the 50 to 70 cases the court decides on its formal merits docket each term.
What happens next depends on the court's upcoming term and the continued rate of emergency filings by the Solicitor General. While the liberal justices have welcomed the increase in explanations, they continue to dissent frequently when the majority rules in favor of the administration. On September 25, 2026, the court’s conservative majority provided a seven-page explanation allowing the Department of Homeland Security to overhaul voter roll policing tools, while Justice Jackson issued a dissent nearly twice as long. The court is also scheduled to receive briefing on whether to overrule the 90-year-old precedent of *Humphrey’s Executor* following a shadow docket ruling related to the firing of independent agency heads.