US Supreme Court keeps ruling in Trump's favour, but doesn't say why
WASHINGTON – In clearing the way for President Donald Trump's efforts to transform American government, the Supreme Court has issued a series of orders that often lacked a fundamental characteristic of most judicial work: an explanation of the court's rationale.
On July 14, for instance, in letting Mr Trump dismantle the Education Department, the majority's unsigned order was a single four-sentence paragraph entirely devoted to the procedural mechanics of pausing a lower court's ruling.
What the order did not include was any explanation of why the court had ruled as it did. It was an exercise of power, not reason.
The silence was even more striking in the face of a 19-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
'The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive,' Ms Sotomayor wrote, 'but either way the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave'.
The question of whether the nation's highest court owes the public an explanation for its actions has grown along with the rise of the 'emergency docket,' which uses truncated procedures to produce terse provisional orders meant to remain in effect only while the courts consider the lawfulness of the challenged actions. In practice, the orders often effectively resolve the case.
The court has allowed the administration to fire tens of thousands of government workers, discharge transgender troops, end protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants from war-torn countries and fundamentally shift power from Congress to the president – often with scant or no explanation of how it arrived at those results.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore HSA launches anti-vaping checks near 5 institutes of higher learning
Singapore Over 600 Telegram groups in Singapore selling, advertising vapes removed by HSA
Business Singapore key exports surprise with 13% rebound in June amid tariff uncertainty
Business Market versus mission: What will Income Insurance choose?
Life First look at the new Singapore Oceanarium at Resorts World Sentosa
Opinion AI and education: We need to know where this sudden marriage is heading
Singapore Coffee Meets Bagel's Singpass check: Why I'll swipe right on that
Singapore Jail for man who fatally hit his daughter, 2, while driving van without licence
In the past 10 weeks alone, the court has granted emergency relief to the Trump administration without explanation seven times, according to a tally by Mr Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown and the author of a book about the court's emergency work called 'The Shadow Docket.'
The ruling on July 14, Mr Vladeck wrote this week in his newsletter, was the latest 'completely unexplained' ruling 'that is going to have massive real-world effects long before the justices ever confront whether what the government is doing is actually lawful'.
All of this is in stark contrast with cases on the court's merits docket, which unfold over about a year and include two rounds of briefs, oral arguments, painstaking deliberations and the exchange of draft opinions. The end result is often a comprehensive set of opinions that can be as long as a short novel.
The court usually rules on emergency applications in a matter of weeks.
Critics call the emergency docket 'the shadow docket,' and its use was on the rise even before it was turbocharged with the arrival of Trump's second administration. Justice Elena Kagan used that term in 2021 in criticising the court's work.
The majority had just issued a midnight ruling that left in place a Texas law effectively overturning Roe v. Wade in the state – as the court would do nationwide in 2026. In dissent, Ms Kagan wrote that 'the majority's decision is emblematic of too much of this court's shadow-docket decision making – which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent and impossible to defend'.
A month later, Justice Samuel Alito returned fire in a speech at Notre Dame defending the court's approach to emergency applications.
'The catchy and sinister term 'shadow docket' has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its ways,' he said. 'This portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court and to damage it as an independent institution.'
He compared the court's procedures to the ones used by emergency medical technicians called to the scene of an accident. 'You can't expect the EMTs and the emergency rooms to do the same thing that a team of physicians and nurses will do when they are handling a matter when time is not of the essence in the same way,' he said.
On the question of scant or absent reasoning, Mr Alito argued that sometimes it is better to say less.
'Journalists may think that we can just dash off an opinion the way they dash off articles,' he said, but 'when we issue an opinion, we are aware that every word that we write can have consequences, sometimes enormous consequences, so we have to be careful about every single thing that we say.'
That argument has some weight, said Mr Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
'Whether the court should explain its emergency orders presents a difficult trade-off,' he said. 'On the one hand, whenever the court writes any kind of majority opinion, even one only a few sentences long, it creates precedent that courts and lawyers feel bound to follow.'
That must be done with care and consideration, he said. On the other hand, he said, 'unexplained orders expose the court to suspicion and criticism.'
'In a highly polarised climate where the court is often accused of acting politically,' he said, 'the justices should feel a heightened obligation to explain their decisions to the public.'
Mr Epps said he favored providing some explanation, pointing to an order in May that allowed Trump to fire two leaders of independent agencies. The two-page majority opinion was, he said, long enough to provide some explanation but 'tentative enough to leave some wiggle room.'
As it happened, the meaning of that opinion has been contested, and it is the subject of a new application pending before the court.
Orders without any reasoning at all can create confusion in the lower courts. In June, for instance, the court allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries other than their own without giving them a chance to show that they would face the risk of torture. The order gave no reasons, and the dissent said it did not apply to men held at an American military base in Djibouti.
The court's silence led to a new application days later seeking clarification. The court then issued an order this month with more than two pages of reasons, enough to allow the administration to send the men to South Sudan. NYTIMES
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


International Business Times
44 minutes ago
- International Business Times
Trump Reveals Striking 'Very Powerful Deal' With EU, With Europeans Agreeing to Buy $750 Billion Worth of US Energy and Pay 15% Tariffs
President Trump announced a sweeping new preliminary trade deal with the European Union, under which the 27-nation bloc has committed to buying $750 billion worth of American energy and boosting its investment in the U.S. by an additional $600 billion beyond existing levels. The United States will implement a 15% tariff on the majority of goods imported from the European Union. Trump announced the agreement shortly after holding talks with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at his Turnberry resort. "I think it's the biggest deal ever made," Trump said. The deal will bring much relief to investors who had been reeling under fears of a global trade war. Trump Does It Gain Trump and EC president Ursula von der Leyen X "I think we both wanted to make a deal," the president added. "It's going to bring us closer together. I think this deal will bring us very close together." As part of the deal, Europe also agreed to "purchase a vast amount of military equipment" from the US, though Trump noted, "We don't know what that number is" yet. Trump and von der Leyen shook hands and praised one another for reaching the deal, but remained vague about what the U.S. had given up in return. "The starting point was an imbalance — a surplus on our side and a deficit on the US side," the EU boss said when asked about the concessions Trump made. "And we wanted to rebalance the trade relation, and we wanted to do it in a way that trade goes on between the two of us across the Atlantic." Trump had warned that he would impose a 30 percent tariff on EU nations if the influential trading bloc didn't come to an agreement with the United States. Von der Leyen flew to Scotland to meet with Trump at his resort in an effort to finalize the deal. Just an hour before the announcement, both leaders estimated there was only a 50 percent chance of striking an agreement. Trump's Planned Move Trump and EC President Ursula von der Leyen X Prior to unveiling the deal, Trump indicated that "pharmaceuticals won't be part" in the deal, explaining that his administration intends to take a more aggressive approach to bring drug manufacturing back to the U.S. Von der Leyen praised Trump, calling him a strong negotiator and skilled dealmaker. "And fair," Trump interjected. Trump, during his informal talk with reporters on Sunday, made it clear that he has no plans to postpone the August 1 deadline for his specially designed "Liberation Day" tariffs to begin—despite having pushed it back twice before, To date, Trump has secured initial tariff agreements with the UK, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia, and the Philippines. He also hinted that his team had recently finalized another deal but did not reveal which nation was involved. Trump currently has a variety of tariffs in place now, including a 25 percent duty on automobiles, aluminum, and steel, as well as a 25 percent tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico that don't meet the requirements of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He has also recently suggested the possibility of increasing those tariffs on both neighboring countries. In addition, Trump has agreed to a temporary tariff pause with China and has given Beijing until August 12 to finalize a broader trade agreement. Earlier this month, he issued an ultimatum to Moscow, demanding that Russia reach a peace agreement with Ukraine within 50 days or face 100% secondary tariffs on its energy exports—penalties that would apply to countries purchasing energy from Russia.


CNA
44 minutes ago
- CNA
US, China to resume tariff talks in effort to extend truce
STOCKHOLM: Senior US and Chinese negotiators meet in Stockholm on Monday (Jul 28) to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of a trade war between the world's top two economies, aiming to extend a truce keeping sharply higher tariffs at bay. China is facing an Aug 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with President Donald Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached a preliminary deal in June to end weeks of escalating tit-for-tat tariffs. Without an agreement, global supply chains could face renewed turmoil from duties exceeding 100 percent. The Stockholm talks, led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, come right on the heels of Trump's biggest trade deal yet, with the European Union accepting a 15 percent tariff on its goods exports to the US and agreeing to make significant EU purchases of US energy and military equipment. That deal struck with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday in Scotland also calls for US$600 billion in investments in the US by the EU, Trump told reporters. No similar breakthrough is expected in the US-China talks, but trade analysts said that another 90-day extension of a tariff and export control truce struck in mid-May was likely. An extension of that length would prevent further escalation and help create conditions for a potential meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in late October or early November. Spokespersons for the White House and US Trade Representative's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on a South China Morning Post report quoting unnamed sources as saying the two sides would refrain from introducing new tariffs or take other steps that could escalate the trade war for another 90 days. Trump's administration is poised to impose new sectoral tariffs that will impact China, including on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, ship-to-shore cranes and other products. "We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," Trump told reporters before his meeting with von der Leyen, providing no further details. DEEPER ISSUES Previous US-China trade talks in Geneva and London in May and June focused on bringing US and Chinese retaliatory tariffs down from triple-digit levels and restoring the flow of rare earth minerals halted by China and Nvidia's H20 AI chips and other goods halted by the United States. So far, the talks have not delved into broader economic issues. They include US complaints that China's state-led, export-driven model is flooding world markets with cheap goods, and Beijing's complaints that US national security export controls on tech goods seek to stunt Chinese growth. "Stockholm will be the first meaningful round of US-China trade talks," said Bo Zhengyuan, Shanghai-based partner at China consultancy firm Plenum. Trump has been successful in pressuring some other trading partners, including Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, into deals accepting higher US tariffs of 15 percent to 20 percent. Analysts say the US-China negotiations are far more complex and will require more time. China's grip on the global market for rare earth minerals and magnets, used in everything from military hardware to car windshield wiper motors, has proved to be an effective leverage point on US industries. TRUMP-XI MEETING? In the background of the talks is speculation about a possible meeting between Trump and Xi in late October. Trump has said he will decide soon whether to visit China in a landmark trip to address trade and security tensions. A new flare-up of tariffs and export controls would likely derail any plans for a meeting with Xi. "The Stockholm meeting is an opportunity to start laying the groundwork for a Trump visit to China," said Wendy Cutler, vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute. Bessent has already said he wants to work out an extension of the Aug 12 deadline to prevent tariffs snapping back to 145 percent on the US side and 125 percent on the Chinese side. Still, China will likely request a reduction of multi-layered US tariffs totaling 55 percent on most goods and further easing of US high-tech export controls, analysts said. Beijing has argued that such purchases would help reduce the US trade deficit with China, which reached US$295.5 billion in 2024. China is currently facing a 20 percent tariff related to the US fentanyl crisis, a 10 percent reciprocal tariff, and 25 percent duties on most industrial goods imposed during Trump's first term. Bessent has also said he would discuss with He the need for China to rebalance its economy away from exports toward domestic consumer demand. The shift would require China to put an end to a protracted property crisis and boost social safety nets to encourage household spending.


CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Trump, EU chief strike trade deal in transatlantic standoff
TURNBERRY, United Kingdom: US President Donald Trump and EU chief Ursula von der Leyen Sunday (Jul 27) announced they had reached a deal to end a transatlantic tariffs standoff and avert a full-blown trade war. The agreement came as the clock ticked down on an Aug 1 deadline for the European Union to strike a deal with Washington, or face an across-the-board US levy of 30 percent. "We have reached a deal. It's a good deal for everybody," Trump told reporters following a high-stakes meeting with von der Leyen at his golf resort in Turnberry, Scotland. Trump told reporters the deal involved a baseline levy of 15 percent on EU exports to the United States, the same level secured by Japan, including for the bloc's crucial auto sector, which is currently being taxed at 25 percent. "We are agreeing that the tariff straight across, for automobiles and everything else, will be a straight across tariff of 15 percent," Trump said. He also said the bloc had agreed to purchase "US$750 billion worth of energy" from the United States, as well as US$600 billion more in additional investments in the country. Negotiating on behalf of the EU's 27 countries, von der Leyen's European Commission had been pushing hard to salvage a trading relationship worth an annual US$1.9 trillion in goods and services. "It's a good deal," the EU chief told reporters, sitting alongside Trump following their hour-long talks.