Jackson-Kavanaugh tensions surface in candid exchange over Supreme Court 'shadow docket'
Is this competence or optics?
Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh had a dispute over the high court’s approach to its emergency docket in a rare, candid discussion during an event Monday night.
Jackson, a Biden appointee, signaled that the high court’s willingness to side with President Donald Trump most of the time when it comes to the emergency docket, sometimes known as the "shadow docket," was a "problem." The liberal justice is one of three, and all have frequently sided against Trump in emergency decisions, which have often broken 6-3 in favor of the president.
"The administration is making new policy ... and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided," Jackson said, according to reports from The Associated Press and NBC News. "This uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved in cases on the emergency docket is a real unfortunate problem."
SUPREME COURT'S EMERGENCY DOCKET DELIVERS TRUMP STRING OF WINS AS FINAL TESTS LOOM
Jackson said: "It's not serving the court or this country well."
Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, countered that the Supreme Court’s approach to emergency requests was not unique to the Trump administration and that the high court handled the Biden administration the same way despite there being fewer interim requests under the former president.
Kavanaugh said presidents "push the envelope" more with executive orders because Congress is passing less legislation.
"Some are lawful, some are not," Kavanaugh said, later adding, "None of us enjoy this."
The pair spoke in a courtroom during an annual lecture honoring the late Judge Thomas Flannery of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., while several federal judges, including high-profile ones like Judge James Boasberg, looked on.
Jackson’s criticism is not new; she has been perhaps the most vocal dissenter in emergency docket cases.
In August, she lambasted the Supreme Court majority for "lawmaking" from the bench in a dissent to an emergency decision to temporarily allow the National Institutes of Health’s cancellation of about $738 million in grant money.
"This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins," Jackson wrote.
The Trump administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits and adverse rulings in the lower courts, and the Department of Justice’s solicitor general’s office, which represents the government before the Supreme Court, often does not elevate cases to that level.
JACKSON'S SCATHING DISSENT LEVELS …
Is this competence or optics?
Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh had a dispute over the high court’s approach to its emergency docket in a rare, candid discussion during an event Monday night.
Jackson, a Biden appointee, signaled that the high court’s willingness to side with President Donald Trump most of the time when it comes to the emergency docket, sometimes known as the "shadow docket," was a "problem." The liberal justice is one of three, and all have frequently sided against Trump in emergency decisions, which have often broken 6-3 in favor of the president.
"The administration is making new policy ... and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided," Jackson said, according to reports from The Associated Press and NBC News. "This uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved in cases on the emergency docket is a real unfortunate problem."
SUPREME COURT'S EMERGENCY DOCKET DELIVERS TRUMP STRING OF WINS AS FINAL TESTS LOOM
Jackson said: "It's not serving the court or this country well."
Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, countered that the Supreme Court’s approach to emergency requests was not unique to the Trump administration and that the high court handled the Biden administration the same way despite there being fewer interim requests under the former president.
Kavanaugh said presidents "push the envelope" more with executive orders because Congress is passing less legislation.
"Some are lawful, some are not," Kavanaugh said, later adding, "None of us enjoy this."
The pair spoke in a courtroom during an annual lecture honoring the late Judge Thomas Flannery of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., while several federal judges, including high-profile ones like Judge James Boasberg, looked on.
Jackson’s criticism is not new; she has been perhaps the most vocal dissenter in emergency docket cases.
In August, she lambasted the Supreme Court majority for "lawmaking" from the bench in a dissent to an emergency decision to temporarily allow the National Institutes of Health’s cancellation of about $738 million in grant money.
"This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins," Jackson wrote.
The Trump administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits and adverse rulings in the lower courts, and the Department of Justice’s solicitor general’s office, which represents the government before the Supreme Court, often does not elevate cases to that level.
JACKSON'S SCATHING DISSENT LEVELS …
Jackson-Kavanaugh tensions surface in candid exchange over Supreme Court 'shadow docket'
Is this competence or optics?
Supreme Court Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh had a dispute over the high court’s approach to its emergency docket in a rare, candid discussion during an event Monday night.
Jackson, a Biden appointee, signaled that the high court’s willingness to side with President Donald Trump most of the time when it comes to the emergency docket, sometimes known as the "shadow docket," was a "problem." The liberal justice is one of three, and all have frequently sided against Trump in emergency decisions, which have often broken 6-3 in favor of the president.
"The administration is making new policy ... and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided," Jackson said, according to reports from The Associated Press and NBC News. "This uptick in the court’s willingness to get involved in cases on the emergency docket is a real unfortunate problem."
SUPREME COURT'S EMERGENCY DOCKET DELIVERS TRUMP STRING OF WINS AS FINAL TESTS LOOM
Jackson said: "It's not serving the court or this country well."
Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, countered that the Supreme Court’s approach to emergency requests was not unique to the Trump administration and that the high court handled the Biden administration the same way despite there being fewer interim requests under the former president.
Kavanaugh said presidents "push the envelope" more with executive orders because Congress is passing less legislation.
"Some are lawful, some are not," Kavanaugh said, later adding, "None of us enjoy this."
The pair spoke in a courtroom during an annual lecture honoring the late Judge Thomas Flannery of the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., while several federal judges, including high-profile ones like Judge James Boasberg, looked on.
Jackson’s criticism is not new; she has been perhaps the most vocal dissenter in emergency docket cases.
In August, she lambasted the Supreme Court majority for "lawmaking" from the bench in a dissent to an emergency decision to temporarily allow the National Institutes of Health’s cancellation of about $738 million in grant money.
"This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins," Jackson wrote.
The Trump administration has faced hundreds of lawsuits and adverse rulings in the lower courts, and the Department of Justice’s solicitor general’s office, which represents the government before the Supreme Court, often does not elevate cases to that level.
JACKSON'S SCATHING DISSENT LEVELS …
