Fordham Law Professor Aaron Saiger explained to Al Jazeera what he believes to be the “most disturbing aspect” of President Donald Trump’s trend in relying heavily on emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Aaron Saiger, a professor at the Fordham University School of Law, explained that, unlike any other administration in recent history, Trump has relied heavily on emergency relief from the court.
“The government asked for it rarely, and the court granted it rarely. Now, the government is asking for it routinely, and the court is granting it routinely,” Saiger told Al Jazeera.
“That doesn’t show a change in the underlying rules of the system, but it is a definite change in the way that the system is behaving.”
As of August, in the first seven months of his second term, the Trump administration has sent at least 22 emergency applications to the Supreme Court.
This outstrips the 19 made during the full four-year term of Trump’s predecessor, President Joe Biden.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama and George W Bush — both two-term presidents — only filed eight emergency petitions a piece.
The uptick under Trump symbolises a different approach to the Supreme Court, according to Saiger. “The government’s reluctance to ask for such relief has gone away,” he said.
And the court appears to be responsive to many of his requests. During Trump’s first term, his administration filed 41 emergency petitions, and received full or partial relief in 28 of the cases.
…
There are instances, of course, where a speedy decision is necessary.
Trump, for example, has pushed for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants during his second term. If immigrants were unable to petition for emergency relief, they could be deported before a court hears their claim.
“The delay very substantially puts in place the policy that the government is trying to win in the long-term,” Saiger said. “Sometimes, the short term really matters.”
…
For Saiger, the most disturbing aspect of this trend is how it might erode the authority of the lower-ranked judges whose decisions the Supreme Court overturns.
Trump has challenged many of the preliminary injunctions that lower courts impose while they consider the merits of a case.
Such temporary injunctions are often granted to prevent irreparable harm from unfolding as the broader case unfolds.
“What is different about what’s been happening lately is the Supreme Court has not provided any reasons and is overruling temporary decisions by the lower courts,” said Saiger.
“In some ways, that’s the most striking feature of what’s been happening.”
Saiger explained that, historically, it has fallen to the Supreme Court to decide questions of extraordinary importance, or cases that have not been resolved in appeals.
But interfering in an ongoing lawsuit was an uncommon practice, he added.
“One has the sense that what the court is trying to do is to force the lower courts into a posture of allowing the administration to proceed on many fronts, despite their doubts about the legality of those actions,” said Saiger.
“That does suggest a finger on the scale in favour of the administration.”
…
For Saiger, meanwhile, the increase in emergency petitions could be a sign that the executive branch is angling for greater power over the judiciary.
One thing is clear, he said: “This administration is so willing to very aggressively push legal boundaries.”
Read “Inside the US Supreme Court’s ‘shadow docket’” on Al Jazeera.