President Donald Trump has been racking up wins at the Supreme Court’s emergency docket like a chess grandmaster clearing the board.
Fox News reported that this year, the Trump administration has notched an impressive string of temporary victories in lawsuits challenging policies on government spending cuts, immigration restrictions, and federal employee terminations, with the Supreme Court stepping in to provide swift relief amid a flood of legal battles.
With a near-perfect record on this fast-track “shadow docket,” the White House tallied 21 favorable rulings, giving the administration breathing room on contentious issues.
Unlike the slow grind of full merits reviews with endless briefs and oral arguments, the emergency docket allows for quick intervention—sometimes in mere days—to pause lower court decisions that could hamstring executive action.
This process has been a lifeline for Trump’s team, especially with the court approving mass firings of career federal workers and high-profile ousters of Democratic appointees.
It’s no surprise the docket’s been buzzing; Trump’s flurry of executive actions has fueled an unprecedented volume of legal challenges, and the Supreme Court has often sided with the administration’s pushback.
On immigration, the court has permitted controversial deportations and border stops while curbing nationwide injunctions that sought to block Trump’s agenda coast to coast.
The justices also gave a temporary nod to withholding billions in foreign aid and discharging transgender service members from the military, decisions that have sparked heated debate but bolstered executive authority for now.
Even in mixed rulings, like ordering the return of a Salvadoran migrant improperly deported to a prison while affirming executive sway over foreign policy, both sides have claimed partial victories.
Ideological lines often define these emergency rulings, with the court’s majority offering scant reasoning compared to the detailed opinions in final decisions—a frustrating opacity for those seeking clarity.
Trump’s team plays a smart game, challenging only about one-fifth of adverse lower court rulings, cherry-picking cases likely to sway the justices in their favor.
As law professor Jonathan Adler noted at a Federalist Society panel, “lower courts are doing too much.” His point cuts to the heart of a conservative frustration with overreaching judges, though one might quip that district courts aren’t the only ones flexing muscle in this legal tug-of-war.
Yet, the celebration might be short-lived; these emergency wins are merely stopgaps, with the Supreme Court set to dive into the full merits of several disputes as its new term kicks off on Monday, October 6, 2025.
Not every case bends Trump’s way—take the recent decision to hear Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s case in January 2026 rather than allowing her immediate dismissal, a rare divergence signaling the court’s nuanced view on certain agencies.
Meanwhile, using the firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter as a test case, the court is poised to revisit a 90-year-old precedent in the coming months, potentially reshaping executive power over independent agencies—a battle worth watching as Trump’s temporary triumphs face their final reckoning.
