The latest emergency docket ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court recently concluded its term with significant rulings on presidential removal power, notably in *Trump v. Cook* and *Trump v. Slaughter*, which originated or were significantly shaped by the Court's emergency docket. These decisions have reshaped the landscape of executive authority over independent agencies, sparking renewed debate among the Justices and legal scholars about the appropriate use and transparency of the so-called "shadow docket." While *Trump v. Cook* upheld the independence of the Federal Reserve Board by preventing a presidential firing, *Trump v. Slaughter* formally overturned a nearly century-old precedent, expanding the President's power to remove Federal Trade Commissioners. These rulings underscore the Court's increasing willingness to address consequential legal questions through expedited procedures, often with limited explanation, raising critical implications for administrative law and the separation of powers.

The U.S. Supreme Court's emergency docket, often referred to as the "shadow docket," has become an increasingly prominent and contentious arena for resolving high-stakes legal disputes. Historically reserved for truly exigent circumstances, such as stays of execution or last-minute injunctions, its use has expanded dramatically in recent years, drawing both scrutiny and sharp internal divisions among the Justices. As the Court concluded its latest term, two significant rulings concerning presidential removal power, *Trump v. Cook* and *Trump v. Slaughter*, emerged from or were heavily influenced by this expedited process, leaving practitioners to grapple with their immediate impact and broader implications.

These decisions, rendered as the Court entered its summer recess, highlight a critical tension: the need for swift judicial intervention versus the imperative for deliberative, transparent legal reasoning. While *Trump v. Cook* saw the Court uphold the independence of a Federal Reserve Governor, *Trump v. Slaughter* marked a substantial expansion of presidential authority over independent agency heads. This article will delve into these recent rulings, examining their legal underpinnings, the Court's evolving approach to the emergency docket, and the practical consequences for attorneys navigating the complex interplay between executive power and administrative independence.

The Supreme Court's authority to grant emergency relief stems from its inherent powers and statutory provisions, allowing it to issue stays or injunctions pending appeal. These applications are typically addressed to the Circuit Justice responsible for the relevant federal circuit, who may act alone or refer the matter to the full Court. The traditional criteria for granting such extraordinary relief are stringent: an applicant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that four Justices will grant certiorari, a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will reverse the lower court's decision on the merits, and that irreparable harm will result without the stay. In close cases, the Court may also balance the equities and consider the public interest.

However, the "shadow docket" operates with distinct characteristics: cases are handled on an expedited basis with limited briefing, no oral argument, and often result in unsigned orders with little or no explanation for the Court's reasoning. This procedural opacity stands in stark contrast to the Court's merits docket, which involves extensive briefing, oral arguments, and fully reasoned opinions. The recent cases of *Trump v. Cook* and *Trump v. Slaughter* arose against this backdrop, challenging long-standing precedents regarding the President's power to remove officials from independent agencies, a doctrine largely shaped by *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), which limited the President's ability to remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause.

The Supreme Court's recent decisions in *Trump v. Cook* and *Trump v. Slaughter* represent a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over presidential removal power and the Court's use of its emergency docket. In *Trump v. Cook*, decided on June 29, 2026, the Court denied an application that would have allowed President Trump to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. Chief Justice Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion, joined by Justice Kavanaugh and the Court's three liberal justices, effectively defending the Federal Reserve's independence from political interference. This ruling, while a full merits decision, was criticized by dissenting conservative justices for being a "consequential decision using the court's procedure designed for emergencies — and short-circuiting lower courts in the process."

Concurrently, the Court issued its 6-3 ruling in *Trump v. Slaughter*, formally affirming the legality of President Trump's earlier move to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter. This decision, which originated with an emergency stay granted in September 2025, explicitly overruled the 1935 precedent set in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), thereby expanding presidential firing powers. The contrast between the outcomes in *Cook* and *Slaughter* highlights the Court's nuanced, and at times seemingly inconsistent, approach to the independence of various federal agencies. While the Federal Reserve's structure was deemed to warrant protection from at-will presidential removal, the FTC's was not.

The use of the emergency docket as a pathway for such significant constitutional pronouncements has drawn sharp criticism. Justice Elena Kagan, in dissents related to similar shadow docket rulings, has argued that the emergency docket "should not be used . . . to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation's separation of powers." Justice Sotomayor has likewise condemned what she views as the "grave misuse of our emergency docket" in cases that lack reasoned analysis and provide little guidance to lower courts. These cases exemplify the growing concern that the Court is increasingly using expedited procedures to make profound changes to the law, often without the benefit of full adversarial briefing and oral argument, leaving lower courts and practitioners with limited clarity on the underlying legal principles.

The Supreme Court's recent rulings in *Trump v. Cook* and *Trump v. Slaughter* have significantly recalibrated the balance of power between the President and independent agencies, particularly concerning removal authority. While *Cook* offered a measure of protection for the Federal Reserve's autonomy, *Slaughter* fundamentally altered the landscape for other independent agencies by overturning a long-standing precedent. These decisions, whether originating as emergency applications or being fast-tracked through the Court's expedited processes, underscore the increasing importance of the shadow docket in shaping substantive law.

For practitioners, these developments necessitate a heightened awareness of the Court's evolving standards for emergency relief and the potential for major legal shifts to occur outside the traditional merits docket. The lack of detailed reasoning in many emergency orders, coupled with the Court's willingness to address foundational constitutional questions, creates an environment of uncertainty for litigants and lower courts. Attorneys must closely monitor the Court's orders list and be prepared to argue for or against emergency applications with a keen understanding of the Court's current jurisprudential leanings, particularly as the debate over the shadow docket's legitimacy and transparency continues to unfold.