Justice Kavanaugh Defends Supreme Court Emergency Orders Amid Transparency Criticism

Justice Brett Kavanaugh defended the Supreme Court's handling of the surge in emergency cases related to President Donald Trump's administration, emphasizing caution in providing detailed explanations for interim rulings. He argued that extensive written opinions on such emergency applications risk a 'lock-in effect,' potentially revealing premature judgments before the final resolution of cases, and noted that these rulings are not final legal conclusions. Kavanaugh highlighted that the court has increased the amount of written reasoning compared to the past and has implemented procedural changes like scheduling emergency oral arguments to improve decision-making. However, Justice Elena Kagan, representing the court's liberal wing, countered that the court should offer clearer explanations to ensure transparency for lower courts and the public. The emergency docket, often called the 'shadow docket,' typically involves limited briefing and no oral arguments, leading to criticism for its lack of clarity, especially as many cases involve Trump’s executive orders on immigration and independent federal agencies. This tension reflects broader debates within the court about balancing the need for swift rulings against the importance of judicial transparency.