June Ruling Season Begins Amid Trump-Fueled Disruptions
The Supreme Court’s traditional June ruling season — typically reserved for its most high-profile and consequential decisions — is being overshadowed this year by an increasing volume of emergency cases tied to the Trump administration. The justices are spending as much, if not more, time managing a wave of fast-tracked legal challenges related to Trump’s executive actions than deliberating the term’s full docket.
“This underscores the degree to which Donald Trump and the Trump administration are sucking all of the oxygen out of the room,” said University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman.
Shadow Docket Grows While Regular Cases Wait
Of the 62 argued cases on the Court’s regular docket for the term, 33 remain undecided as June begins. But since January, the justices have issued decisions in at least 11 Trump-related emergency cases via the “shadow docket” — a term for rulings issued without full briefing or oral arguments. These decisions, often released at unpredictable hours and with minimal explanation, carry significant weight.
The shadow docket has already enabled Trump policies including a ban on transgender military service, the removal of legal protections for thousands of immigrants, and the firing of independent federal officials. Just last week, the Court permitted the administration to revoke protections for over 500,000 immigrants.
Fewer Blockbuster Cases on the Merits Docket
Compared to past years, the Court’s regular docket is relatively light on headline-grabbing issues. Notable pending cases include a challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender transition care for minors, a religious objection to LGBTQ-themed books in Maryland public schools, and Texas’ effort to restrict access to pornographic websites.
By contrast, in previous summers the Court issued major rulings expanding gun rights, dismantling affirmative action in college admissions, upholding abortion pill access, and granting Trump broad immunity for actions taken during his first term.
Emergency Docket May Become the New Normal
Legal scholars warn the emergency docket is no longer an exception. William Baude, the University of Chicago Law professor who coined the term, said it may soon become the standard process for high-stakes cases. Some emergency matters, like a challenge to a TikTok ban, have gone from appeal to decision within weeks — a pace far faster than typical Supreme Court procedures.
Other emergency appeals are being converted into full merits cases, effectively creating a “rocket docket” that bypasses lower court review and accelerates key legal questions to the top.
Justices Keep Docket Light Ahead of Potential Trump Wave
Some experts believe the Court has intentionally kept its merits docket lighter this term to prepare for possible election-related cases or a second-term surge of Trump litigation. “I definitely feel like the court is reserving space in its schedule for emergency docket cases involving Trump administration initiatives,” said Supreme Court lawyer John Elwood.
Assault Weapons Ban Challenges Rejected — For Now
On Monday, the Court declined to hear challenges to Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons and Rhode Island’s limit on high-capacity magazines. These laws — upheld by appeals courts — will remain in effect for now. But the issue could return soon, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh and three other conservative justices signaling interest in future Second Amendment cases.
Kavanaugh noted that AR-15s are widely owned and suggested Maryland’s ban may not align with the Court’s 2022 decision expanding gun rights outside the home. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent that the ban likely violates the Second Amendment.
Court Balances Restraint and Readiness
Despite its 6-3 conservative majority, the Court has recently shown caution in accepting new gun rights cases, even as lower courts and states grapple with how to interpret the landmark 2022 ruling.
This term’s mix of restraint on the merits docket and rapid movement on Trump-related emergency matters signals a shifting dynamic — one where the nation’s highest court is increasingly reactive to executive power and political urgency rather than deliberate judicial review.
