Harvard Law School Rappaport Forum: The Supreme Court's Emergency Orders

Why It Matters

The Court’s unchecked emergency rulings can instantly alter national policy, concentrating power in the judiciary and undermining established checks and balances.

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court’s shadow docket eclipses merits docket in impact.
• Trump administration filed 35 emergency requests in 2025, unprecedented.
• Court granted relief in 24 of 35 cases, high success rate.
• Orders often lack reasoning, overriding lower courts’ factual findings.
• Shadow docket decisions reshape policy on aid, immigration, and agencies.

Summary

The Harvard Law School Rappaport Forum examined the Supreme Court’s growing reliance on emergency, or “shadow docket,” orders—a procedural track that bypasses full briefing and oral argument. Panelists highlighted how, since the second Trump term, the Court has issued a surge of emergency relief, granting 31 applications in the 2024 term and 24 of 35 requests in 2025 alone, a stark contrast to the eight such requests across the Bush and Obama years.

Data presented showed the administration’s unprecedented use of the docket, with a win rate exceeding 70 percent, and illustrated the substantive impact of these terse orders: they have halted NIH diversity grants, authorized expansive ICE raids, cut billions in foreign aid, and reshaped agency authority without detailed opinions. The discussion underscored that the Court often provides no reasoning, and when it does, it sometimes constructs an alternate factual narrative, as Justice Kavanaugh did in the Vasquez Perdomo ICE case.

Notable remarks included Justice Gorsuch’s rebuke of lower‑court judges for “defying” Supreme Court direction and Justice Kavanaugh’s factual reinterpretation that ignored a district court’s 52‑page evidentiary record. The panel also cited the NIH grant case where Justice Gorsuch accused a district judge of overstepping, illustrating a new willingness of the Court to criticize and overturn factual findings from trial courts.

The implications are profound: the shadow docket is reshaping policy on immigration, education, and foreign assistance while eroding traditional judicial deference to lower courts. Critics warn this trend threatens the rule of law and the separation of powers, prompting calls for greater transparency and procedural safeguards around emergency orders.

Original Description

A discussion on "The Docket That Shall Not Be Named – The Supreme Court’s Emergency Orders" was part of the Harvard Law School Rappaport Forum on Feb. 25. Moderated by Harvard Law Professor Richard Re, panelists included Jonathan H. Adler, Tazewell Taylor Professor of Law and William H. Cabell Research Professor at William & Mary School of Law, and Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at Penn Carey Law of the University of Pennsylvania.

0:00 Introduction by Dean John Goldberg

2:37 Richard Re introduction

3:37 Kate Shaw remarks

15:43 Jonathan Adler remarks

28:50 Discussion and Q&A

Learn more about the Harvard Law School Rappaport Forum: https://hls.harvard.edu/harvard-law-school-rappaport-forum/

The latest news from Harvard Law School at Harvard Law Today: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/

Subscribe to the Harvard Law Today newsletter: https://hls.harvard.edu/sign-up-for-the-harvard-law-today-newsletter-2/