AG Todd Blanche defends Trump’s criticism of Supreme Court mail ballot ruling
Attorney General Todd Blanche has come to President Donald Trump’s defense regarding his critiques of the Supreme Court, particularly in light of a recent mail-in voting ruling. Blanche insists that the president has every right to voice his opinions about other branches of government. He notes that questioning court rulings is a fundamental aspect of American democracy.
Meanwhile, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues for hastily managing cases on the high court’s emergency docket, remarking that their approach has been “noticeably less restrained,” especially concerning contentious issues.
This emergency docket, often referred to as the shadow docket, enables parties to request quick intervention from the Supreme Court, allowing them to temporarily suspend lower court decisions. This process can range from a few days to several months and serves as a quicker, although provisional, means of obtaining judicial relief compared to the full consideration of a case, which typically involves extensive briefing and oral arguments.
During a speech at the University of the District of Columbia’s law school, Jackson questioned the fairness of allowing one party a “fast pass” to the Supreme Court while numerous others await their turn. She expressed concern, stating, “If we’re not careful, the emergency docket can and will become an end run around the standard review process, a special avenue that certain privileged litigants can use selectively.”
Jackson’s remarks are punctuated by the fact that the Trump administration has filed 40 emergency applications with the Supreme Court since he began his second term. Through the emergency docket, the court has authorized sweeping actions, including mass firings within federal agencies and controversial immigration policies.
The Trump administration has reportedly succeeded in roughly 80% of its emergency appeals since the start of the president’s second term.
The Supreme Court often divides along ideological lines, issuing little rationale for its emergency decisions. This contrasts starkly with its final rulings, which typically feature detailed explanations, along with various concurring opinions and dissenting views.
Jackson also mentioned that parties should demonstrate imminent harm in situations where cases can’t wait for lower courts to reach a verdict. She criticized the practice of the Supreme Court granting stays based on a supposed potential for mistakes by lower courts. “Significant real-world harms can follow Supreme Court stay rulings,” she noted, emphasizing the need for clearer explanations to maintain public trust in the judicial system.
