#scotusblog — Public Fediverse posts

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

INTERIM DOCKET

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack

By Taraleigh Davis, Jan 28, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

For years, scholars and commentators have tracked the Supreme Court’s merits docket through detailed statistical analyses. SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack has become an essential resource for understanding how the justices decide cases after full briefing and oral argument. But the court’s “other” docket, the interim relief docket – also known as the emergency or shadow docket – has received far less systematic attention.

Until now.

I’m proud to introduce the first Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, a statistical portrait of the Supreme Court’s applications for the 2024-25 term (that is, from October 7, 2024, through October 5, 2025).

What’s included

I have been collecting data on applications for relief (beginning with the court’s 2000-01 term) for several years. Based on this data, the current Stat Pack covers 136 applications filed during the 2024-25 term. These break down into three categories: 49 capital cases (requests to stay or vacate executions), 32 refiled applications (cases denied in chambers and referred to the full court), and 55 of what I call substantive applications. Of the 55 substantive applications, six were deferred for oral argument, leaving 49 for statistical analysis. That final category includes challenges to lower court injunctions, often from the administration; administrative enforcement disputes; First Amendment conflicts; and federalism questions.

The Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack tracks how the justices voted on the interim docket and in what coalitions, the timing of such decisions, issue areas, who filed what, and much more – thus providing unprecedented insight into this docket. It also includes a Term Index, which is a complete case-by-case breakdown of these applications, including docket numbers, case names, outcomes, days to decision, and noted dissents.

Some key findings

During the 2024-25 term, the court granted relief in 53% of substantive applications, more than double the 23% grant rate from the previous term. At the same time, the justices publicly disagreed in 76% of substantive cases, far exceeding the pre-2014 average of 13.5%.

Perhaps predictably, the Trump administration dominated much of the docket, filing 27 of 55 substantive applications and obtaining relief in a striking 90% of these. Yet only 9% of the Trump cases were decided unanimously – with justices typically publicly disagreeing along ideological lines.

Additionally, the interim docket has (at least partly) emerged from the shadows: written opinions accompanied 31% of substantive applications, continuing the dramatic increase from near-zero during 2015-17 and 23% in 2023.

For many more findings, please check out the Stat Pack itself, which can be downloaded below.

As this docket continues to generate increased attention and influence, this Stat Pack should serve as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the nature of the current court.

Posted in Court Analysis, Emergency appeals and applications, Featured

Recommended Citation: Taraleigh Davis, Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 28, 2026, 9:30 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/introducing-the-interim-relief-docket-stat-pack/

Recent Posts

View All

Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats

February 4, 2026 Read more

The Black Codes must not define America’s fundamental freedoms

February 4, 2026 Read more

There was a surge in executions in 2025. Here’s how the Supreme Court responded.

February 4, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, February 4

February 4, 2026 Read more

Why equal protection can’t be settled by biology and statistics

February 3, 2026 Read more

The Supreme Court’s vanishing fall docket

February 3, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3

February 3, 2026 Read more

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

INTERIM DOCKET

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack

By Taraleigh Davis, Jan 28, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

For years, scholars and commentators have tracked the Supreme Court’s merits docket through detailed statistical analyses. SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack has become an essential resource for understanding how the justices decide cases after full briefing and oral argument. But the court’s “other” docket, the interim relief docket – also known as the emergency or shadow docket – has received far less systematic attention.

Until now.

I’m proud to introduce the first Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, a statistical portrait of the Supreme Court’s applications for the 2024-25 term (that is, from October 7, 2024, through October 5, 2025).

What’s included

I have been collecting data on applications for relief (beginning with the court’s 2000-01 term) for several years. Based on this data, the current Stat Pack covers 136 applications filed during the 2024-25 term. These break down into three categories: 49 capital cases (requests to stay or vacate executions), 32 refiled applications (cases denied in chambers and referred to the full court), and 55 of what I call substantive applications. Of the 55 substantive applications, six were deferred for oral argument, leaving 49 for statistical analysis. That final category includes challenges to lower court injunctions, often from the administration; administrative enforcement disputes; First Amendment conflicts; and federalism questions.

The Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack tracks how the justices voted on the interim docket and in what coalitions, the timing of such decisions, issue areas, who filed what, and much more – thus providing unprecedented insight into this docket. It also includes a Term Index, which is a complete case-by-case breakdown of these applications, including docket numbers, case names, outcomes, days to decision, and noted dissents.

Some key findings

During the 2024-25 term, the court granted relief in 53% of substantive applications, more than double the 23% grant rate from the previous term. At the same time, the justices publicly disagreed in 76% of substantive cases, far exceeding the pre-2014 average of 13.5%.

Perhaps predictably, the Trump administration dominated much of the docket, filing 27 of 55 substantive applications and obtaining relief in a striking 90% of these. Yet only 9% of the Trump cases were decided unanimously – with justices typically publicly disagreeing along ideological lines.

Additionally, the interim docket has (at least partly) emerged from the shadows: written opinions accompanied 31% of substantive applications, continuing the dramatic increase from near-zero during 2015-17 and 23% in 2023.

For many more findings, please check out the Stat Pack itself, which can be downloaded below.

As this docket continues to generate increased attention and influence, this Stat Pack should serve as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the nature of the current court.

Posted in Court Analysis, Emergency appeals and applications, Featured

Recommended Citation: Taraleigh Davis, Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 28, 2026, 9:30 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/introducing-the-interim-relief-docket-stat-pack/

Recent Posts

View All

Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats

February 4, 2026 Read more

The Black Codes must not define America’s fundamental freedoms

February 4, 2026 Read more

There was a surge in executions in 2025. Here’s how the Supreme Court responded.

February 4, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, February 4

February 4, 2026 Read more

Why equal protection can’t be settled by biology and statistics

February 3, 2026 Read more

The Supreme Court’s vanishing fall docket

February 3, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3

February 3, 2026 Read more

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

INTERIM DOCKET

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack

By Taraleigh Davis, Jan 28, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

For years, scholars and commentators have tracked the Supreme Court’s merits docket through detailed statistical analyses. SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack has become an essential resource for understanding how the justices decide cases after full briefing and oral argument. But the court’s “other” docket, the interim relief docket – also known as the emergency or shadow docket – has received far less systematic attention.

Until now.

I’m proud to introduce the first Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, a statistical portrait of the Supreme Court’s applications for the 2024-25 term (that is, from October 7, 2024, through October 5, 2025).

What’s included

I have been collecting data on applications for relief (beginning with the court’s 2000-01 term) for several years. Based on this data, the current Stat Pack covers 136 applications filed during the 2024-25 term. These break down into three categories: 49 capital cases (requests to stay or vacate executions), 32 refiled applications (cases denied in chambers and referred to the full court), and 55 of what I call substantive applications. Of the 55 substantive applications, six were deferred for oral argument, leaving 49 for statistical analysis. That final category includes challenges to lower court injunctions, often from the administration; administrative enforcement disputes; First Amendment conflicts; and federalism questions.

The Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack tracks how the justices voted on the interim docket and in what coalitions, the timing of such decisions, issue areas, who filed what, and much more – thus providing unprecedented insight into this docket. It also includes a Term Index, which is a complete case-by-case breakdown of these applications, including docket numbers, case names, outcomes, days to decision, and noted dissents.

Some key findings

During the 2024-25 term, the court granted relief in 53% of substantive applications, more than double the 23% grant rate from the previous term. At the same time, the justices publicly disagreed in 76% of substantive cases, far exceeding the pre-2014 average of 13.5%.

Perhaps predictably, the Trump administration dominated much of the docket, filing 27 of 55 substantive applications and obtaining relief in a striking 90% of these. Yet only 9% of the Trump cases were decided unanimously – with justices typically publicly disagreeing along ideological lines.

Additionally, the interim docket has (at least partly) emerged from the shadows: written opinions accompanied 31% of substantive applications, continuing the dramatic increase from near-zero during 2015-17 and 23% in 2023.

For many more findings, please check out the Stat Pack itself, which can be downloaded below.

As this docket continues to generate increased attention and influence, this Stat Pack should serve as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the nature of the current court.

Posted in Court Analysis, Emergency appeals and applications, Featured

Recommended Citation: Taraleigh Davis, Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 28, 2026, 9:30 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/introducing-the-interim-relief-docket-stat-pack/

Recent Posts

View All

Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats

February 4, 2026 Read more

The Black Codes must not define America’s fundamental freedoms

February 4, 2026 Read more

There was a surge in executions in 2025. Here’s how the Supreme Court responded.

February 4, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, February 4

February 4, 2026 Read more

Why equal protection can’t be settled by biology and statistics

February 3, 2026 Read more

The Supreme Court’s vanishing fall docket

February 3, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3

February 3, 2026 Read more

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

INTERIM DOCKET

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack

By Taraleigh Davis, Jan 28, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

For years, scholars and commentators have tracked the Supreme Court’s merits docket through detailed statistical analyses. SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack has become an essential resource for understanding how the justices decide cases after full briefing and oral argument. But the court’s “other” docket, the interim relief docket – also known as the emergency or shadow docket – has received far less systematic attention.

Until now.

I’m proud to introduce the first Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, a statistical portrait of the Supreme Court’s applications for the 2024-25 term (that is, from October 7, 2024, through October 5, 2025).

What’s included

I have been collecting data on applications for relief (beginning with the court’s 2000-01 term) for several years. Based on this data, the current Stat Pack covers 136 applications filed during the 2024-25 term. These break down into three categories: 49 capital cases (requests to stay or vacate executions), 32 refiled applications (cases denied in chambers and referred to the full court), and 55 of what I call substantive applications. Of the 55 substantive applications, six were deferred for oral argument, leaving 49 for statistical analysis. That final category includes challenges to lower court injunctions, often from the administration; administrative enforcement disputes; First Amendment conflicts; and federalism questions.

The Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack tracks how the justices voted on the interim docket and in what coalitions, the timing of such decisions, issue areas, who filed what, and much more – thus providing unprecedented insight into this docket. It also includes a Term Index, which is a complete case-by-case breakdown of these applications, including docket numbers, case names, outcomes, days to decision, and noted dissents.

Some key findings

During the 2024-25 term, the court granted relief in 53% of substantive applications, more than double the 23% grant rate from the previous term. At the same time, the justices publicly disagreed in 76% of substantive cases, far exceeding the pre-2014 average of 13.5%.

Perhaps predictably, the Trump administration dominated much of the docket, filing 27 of 55 substantive applications and obtaining relief in a striking 90% of these. Yet only 9% of the Trump cases were decided unanimously – with justices typically publicly disagreeing along ideological lines.

Additionally, the interim docket has (at least partly) emerged from the shadows: written opinions accompanied 31% of substantive applications, continuing the dramatic increase from near-zero during 2015-17 and 23% in 2023.

For many more findings, please check out the Stat Pack itself, which can be downloaded below.

As this docket continues to generate increased attention and influence, this Stat Pack should serve as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the nature of the current court.

Posted in Court Analysis, Emergency appeals and applications, Featured

Recommended Citation: Taraleigh Davis, Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 28, 2026, 9:30 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/introducing-the-interim-relief-docket-stat-pack/

Recent Posts

View All

Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats

February 4, 2026 Read more

The Black Codes must not define America’s fundamental freedoms

February 4, 2026 Read more

There was a surge in executions in 2025. Here’s how the Supreme Court responded.

February 4, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, February 4

February 4, 2026 Read more

Why equal protection can’t be settled by biology and statistics

February 3, 2026 Read more

The Supreme Court’s vanishing fall docket

February 3, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3

February 3, 2026 Read more

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

INTERIM DOCKET

Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack

By Taraleigh Davis, Jan 28, 2026

Facebook LinkedIn X Email Print

For years, scholars and commentators have tracked the Supreme Court’s merits docket through detailed statistical analyses. SCOTUSblog’s Stat Pack has become an essential resource for understanding how the justices decide cases after full briefing and oral argument. But the court’s “other” docket, the interim relief docket – also known as the emergency or shadow docket – has received far less systematic attention.

Until now.

I’m proud to introduce the first Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, a statistical portrait of the Supreme Court’s applications for the 2024-25 term (that is, from October 7, 2024, through October 5, 2025).

What’s included

I have been collecting data on applications for relief (beginning with the court’s 2000-01 term) for several years. Based on this data, the current Stat Pack covers 136 applications filed during the 2024-25 term. These break down into three categories: 49 capital cases (requests to stay or vacate executions), 32 refiled applications (cases denied in chambers and referred to the full court), and 55 of what I call substantive applications. Of the 55 substantive applications, six were deferred for oral argument, leaving 49 for statistical analysis. That final category includes challenges to lower court injunctions, often from the administration; administrative enforcement disputes; First Amendment conflicts; and federalism questions.

The Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack tracks how the justices voted on the interim docket and in what coalitions, the timing of such decisions, issue areas, who filed what, and much more – thus providing unprecedented insight into this docket. It also includes a Term Index, which is a complete case-by-case breakdown of these applications, including docket numbers, case names, outcomes, days to decision, and noted dissents.

Some key findings

During the 2024-25 term, the court granted relief in 53% of substantive applications, more than double the 23% grant rate from the previous term. At the same time, the justices publicly disagreed in 76% of substantive cases, far exceeding the pre-2014 average of 13.5%.

Perhaps predictably, the Trump administration dominated much of the docket, filing 27 of 55 substantive applications and obtaining relief in a striking 90% of these. Yet only 9% of the Trump cases were decided unanimously – with justices typically publicly disagreeing along ideological lines.

Additionally, the interim docket has (at least partly) emerged from the shadows: written opinions accompanied 31% of substantive applications, continuing the dramatic increase from near-zero during 2015-17 and 23% in 2023.

For many more findings, please check out the Stat Pack itself, which can be downloaded below.

As this docket continues to generate increased attention and influence, this Stat Pack should serve as an invaluable resource for anyone seeking to understand the nature of the current court.

Posted in Court Analysis, Emergency appeals and applications, Featured

Recommended Citation: Taraleigh Davis, Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 28, 2026, 9:30 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/introducing-the-interim-relief-docket-stat-pack/

Recent Posts

View All

Supreme Court allows California to use congressional map benefitting Democrats

February 4, 2026 Read more

The Black Codes must not define America’s fundamental freedoms

February 4, 2026 Read more

There was a surge in executions in 2025. Here’s how the Supreme Court responded.

February 4, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Wednesday, February 4

February 4, 2026 Read more

Why equal protection can’t be settled by biology and statistics

February 3, 2026 Read more

The Supreme Court’s vanishing fall docket

February 3, 2026 Read more

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, February 3

February 3, 2026 Read more

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Introducing the Interim Relief Docket Stat Pack – SCOTUSblog

A justice’s most lasting legacy – SCOTUSblog

Home Newsletters, EMPIRICAL SCOTUS

A justice’s most lasting legacy

By Adam Feldman, on Nov 14, 2025

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

Among a president’s most enduring legacies are the federal judges they appoint – particularly Supreme Court justices. This permanence stems from life tenure, a constitutional provision that ensures judicial independence but also transforms each appointment into a generational bet on the nation’s legal future.

Yet history is littered with presidential miscalculations. President Dwight D. Eisenhower supposedly called his appointment of Earl Warren as chief justice one of his “biggest mistakes,” as Warren became a liberal stalwart for over a decade. Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter, both nominated by Republican presidents, evolved into some of the court’s most liberal members. Had Republican presidents consistently installed reliably conservative justices since the mid-20th century, the court would have been far more conservative than it actually was (and perhaps even is today).

But presidential legacy is only part of the story. The judges themselves have developed their own succession strategies. In recent years, a striking pattern has emerged: Supreme Court justices now appear ready to retire only with tacit – or perhaps explicit – assurances that they will be replaced by someone they helped shape, typically a former clerk. This, combined with the fact that so many such clerks now serve as judges on the lower courts, has had profound effects – and will continue to do so – on the federal judiciary. 

Judicial successors 

Supreme Court clerkships represent a relatively modern phenomenon, emerging primarily as the court evolved through the 20th century. The number of clerks allocated to each justice has steadily increased, from two until 1969, to three in the 1970s, and to four in 1980. This has also expanded the pool of potential judicial heirs. Justice Byron White was the first justice to have clerked for a former justice – Chief Justice Fred Vinson in his case. Chief Justice William Rehnquist clerked for Robert Jackson, and Stevens for Wiley Rutledge. Stevens was confirmed in 1975. Of the next several justices – Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – none held a Supreme Court clerkship. 

Then came Justice Stephen Breyer, confirmed in 1994, who had clerked for Justice Arthur Goldberg. The majority of justices appointed after 1994 held Supreme Court clerkships at one point in their careers – Chief Justice John Roberts for Rehnquist, Elena Kagan for Thurgood Marshall, Neil Gorsuch for Kennedy (although he was originally hired by White before his retirement), Brett Kavanaugh for Kennedy, Amy Coney Barrett for Scalia, and Ketanji Brown Jackson for Breyer. Neither Samuel Alito nor Sonia Sotomayor clerked at the Supreme Court level, leaving them a minority in this regard.

Indeed, since Kennedy retired in 2018, the phenomenon of justices being replaced by their clerks has become the norm rather than the exception. As noted, not one but two of Kennedy’s former clerks were appointed by President Donald Trump in succession: Gorsuch filled Scalia’s seat, which had remained vacant longer than any in court history, and Kennedy’s own seat went to Kavanaugh. According to Politico, Kennedy’s backroom conversations with Trump prior to his departure may have been used to facilitate a transition. For Trump, this was advantageous: he could install more consistently conservative justices than Kennedy, who had occasionally sided with liberals on consequential civil liberties cases like the same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

This trend of former clerks joining the court continued with Barrett, a Scalia clerk, replacing Ginsburg after her death, and Jackson, a Breyer clerk, succeeding her former mentor. 

The downstream effects of Supreme Court clerkships can reshape American law across generations. Consider the lineage from Jackson to Rehnquist, who clerked for Jackson, to Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist. And this chain of influence now spans more than half a century, with each generation of jurists passing their interpretive methods to the next.

Breaking down the numbers

But that is not the full picture. The data also reveals how widespread former Supreme Court clerks are in the federal judiciary as a whole.

Thomas leads by a substantial margin, with 12 former clerks hired as federal judges – a testament both to his long tenure and his deliberate cultivation of conservative judicial talent. Kennedy follows with 10 clerk-judges, including the two Supreme Court justices mentioned earlier. Rehnquist placed eight former clerks, continuing his influence even after his 2005 death.

Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ginsburg each count six former clerks in the federal judiciary, and Stevens also placed six. Alito has four clerk-judges, while Breyer and Souter each have three. (Perhaps most surprisingly, given his position as chief justice, Roberts has not yet seen a former clerk become a federal judge.)

Implications: the self-replicating judiciary

These patterns of clerk placement, both on the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court itself, point toward a fundamental transformation in how the federal judiciary perpetuates itself. What began as perhaps an informal preference for continuity has evolved into something approaching a self-replicating system, where judicial philosophies pass from one generation to the next through carefully cultivated mentor-clerk relationships. And the implications extend far beyond individual careers or even the ideological balance of particular courts.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A justice’s most lasting legacy – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #america #clerks #donaldTrump #education #federalJudiciary #health #history #influences #justice #justices #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #resistance #science #scotus #scotusblog #supremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

A justice’s most lasting legacy – SCOTUSblog

Home Newsletters, EMPIRICAL SCOTUS

A justice’s most lasting legacy

By Adam Feldman, on Nov 14, 2025

Empirical SCOTUS is a recurring series by Adam Feldman that looks at Supreme Court data, primarily in the form of opinions and oral arguments, to provide insights into the justices’ decision making and what we can expect from the court in the future.

Among a president’s most enduring legacies are the federal judges they appoint – particularly Supreme Court justices. This permanence stems from life tenure, a constitutional provision that ensures judicial independence but also transforms each appointment into a generational bet on the nation’s legal future.

Yet history is littered with presidential miscalculations. President Dwight D. Eisenhower supposedly called his appointment of Earl Warren as chief justice one of his “biggest mistakes,” as Warren became a liberal stalwart for over a decade. Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter, both nominated by Republican presidents, evolved into some of the court’s most liberal members. Had Republican presidents consistently installed reliably conservative justices since the mid-20th century, the court would have been far more conservative than it actually was (and perhaps even is today).

But presidential legacy is only part of the story. The judges themselves have developed their own succession strategies. In recent years, a striking pattern has emerged: Supreme Court justices now appear ready to retire only with tacit – or perhaps explicit – assurances that they will be replaced by someone they helped shape, typically a former clerk. This, combined with the fact that so many such clerks now serve as judges on the lower courts, has had profound effects – and will continue to do so – on the federal judiciary. 

Judicial successors 

Supreme Court clerkships represent a relatively modern phenomenon, emerging primarily as the court evolved through the 20th century. The number of clerks allocated to each justice has steadily increased, from two until 1969, to three in the 1970s, and to four in 1980. This has also expanded the pool of potential judicial heirs. Justice Byron White was the first justice to have clerked for a former justice – Chief Justice Fred Vinson in his case. Chief Justice William Rehnquist clerked for Robert Jackson, and Stevens for Wiley Rutledge. Stevens was confirmed in 1975. Of the next several justices – Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Souter, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg – none held a Supreme Court clerkship. 

Then came Justice Stephen Breyer, confirmed in 1994, who had clerked for Justice Arthur Goldberg. The majority of justices appointed after 1994 held Supreme Court clerkships at one point in their careers – Chief Justice John Roberts for Rehnquist, Elena Kagan for Thurgood Marshall, Neil Gorsuch for Kennedy (although he was originally hired by White before his retirement), Brett Kavanaugh for Kennedy, Amy Coney Barrett for Scalia, and Ketanji Brown Jackson for Breyer. Neither Samuel Alito nor Sonia Sotomayor clerked at the Supreme Court level, leaving them a minority in this regard.

Indeed, since Kennedy retired in 2018, the phenomenon of justices being replaced by their clerks has become the norm rather than the exception. As noted, not one but two of Kennedy’s former clerks were appointed by President Donald Trump in succession: Gorsuch filled Scalia’s seat, which had remained vacant longer than any in court history, and Kennedy’s own seat went to Kavanaugh. According to Politico, Kennedy’s backroom conversations with Trump prior to his departure may have been used to facilitate a transition. For Trump, this was advantageous: he could install more consistently conservative justices than Kennedy, who had occasionally sided with liberals on consequential civil liberties cases like the same-sex marriage decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.

This trend of former clerks joining the court continued with Barrett, a Scalia clerk, replacing Ginsburg after her death, and Jackson, a Breyer clerk, succeeding her former mentor. 

The downstream effects of Supreme Court clerkships can reshape American law across generations. Consider the lineage from Jackson to Rehnquist, who clerked for Jackson, to Roberts, who clerked for Rehnquist. And this chain of influence now spans more than half a century, with each generation of jurists passing their interpretive methods to the next.

Breaking down the numbers

But that is not the full picture. The data also reveals how widespread former Supreme Court clerks are in the federal judiciary as a whole.

Thomas leads by a substantial margin, with 12 former clerks hired as federal judges – a testament both to his long tenure and his deliberate cultivation of conservative judicial talent. Kennedy follows with 10 clerk-judges, including the two Supreme Court justices mentioned earlier. Rehnquist placed eight former clerks, continuing his influence even after his 2005 death.

Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Ginsburg each count six former clerks in the federal judiciary, and Stevens also placed six. Alito has four clerk-judges, while Breyer and Souter each have three. (Perhaps most surprisingly, given his position as chief justice, Roberts has not yet seen a former clerk become a federal judge.)

Implications: the self-replicating judiciary

These patterns of clerk placement, both on the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court itself, point toward a fundamental transformation in how the federal judiciary perpetuates itself. What began as perhaps an informal preference for continuity has evolved into something approaching a self-replicating system, where judicial philosophies pass from one generation to the next through carefully cultivated mentor-clerk relationships. And the implications extend far beyond individual careers or even the ideological balance of particular courts.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: A justice’s most lasting legacy – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #america #clerks #donaldTrump #education #federalJudiciary #health #history #influences #justice #justices #libraries #library #libraryOfCongress #opinion #politics #resistance #science #scotus #scotusblog #supremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #trump #trumpAdministration #unitedStates

The president’s power to deploy troops domestically: an explainer

By Kelsey Dallas
Updated on Oct. 28 at 9:16 p.m.

Since June, President Donald Trump has ordered several #NationalGuard deployments within the United States, often against the wishes of the Democratic governors of the states where troops are being sent. The resulting legal battles have put a spotlight on the president’s authority to federalize troops and use them domestically. How far, exactly, does this power extend?

"Overview:
This document explores President Trump's authority to deploy National Guard troops domestically, highlighting legal frameworks, recent deployments, and ongoing court challenges. ​

Presidential Authority and Legal Framework

- The Constitution grants Congress the power to call forth the militia, while the president commands troops under Article II. ​
- The Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to call troops for domestic insurrections or to enforce U.S. laws. ​
- Trump has invoked 10 U.S.C. ​ § 12406, which permits federalizing National Guard troops to address foreign invasions, rebellions, or law enforcement needs. ​
- Legal challenges focus on whether conditions in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago meet the criteria for federal troop deployment. ​

Recent Deployments and Legal Challenges

- Trump has deployed National Guard troops to cities with Democratic governors, citing rising crime rates and the need for federal law enforcement support. ​
- Legal disputes have arisen, particularly in Chicago, where a judge ruled the deployment unnecessary, and similar rulings occurred in Los Angeles and Portland. ​
- The 9th Circuit Court has paused lower court orders blocking deployments, emphasizing deference to presidential authority in determining troop necessity. ​

Key Legal Cases and Acts

- Martin v. Mott (1827) established that a president's decision to call up militia cannot be questioned, though interpretations vary today regarding judicial review. ​
- The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, which has been a point of contention in recent deployments. ​
- The Insurrection Act allows broader presidential authority to deploy troops without the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, enabling action when law enforcement is impracticable. ​

Future Implications

- Trump has suggested he may invoke the Insurrection Act if other legal avenues fail. ​
- The Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the Chicago deployment could clarify the extent of presidential power under Section 12406 and its implications for future troop deployments."

Full article:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/the-presidents-power-to-deploy-troops-domestically-an-explainer/

#SCOTUSBlog #USPol #TrumpSucks #NationalGuardReactionForces #PosseComitatus #FoodInsecurity
#SoylentGreen #HungerGames
#CapitolGuards #BellRiots #FightForTheFuture

The president’s power to deploy troops domestically: an explainer

By Kelsey Dallas
Updated on Oct. 28 at 9:16 p.m.

Since June, President Donald Trump has ordered several #NationalGuard deployments within the United States, often against the wishes of the Democratic governors of the states where troops are being sent. The resulting legal battles have put a spotlight on the president’s authority to federalize troops and use them domestically. How far, exactly, does this power extend?

"Overview:
This document explores President Trump's authority to deploy National Guard troops domestically, highlighting legal frameworks, recent deployments, and ongoing court challenges. ​

Presidential Authority and Legal Framework

- The Constitution grants Congress the power to call forth the militia, while the president commands troops under Article II. ​
- The Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to call troops for domestic insurrections or to enforce U.S. laws. ​
- Trump has invoked 10 U.S.C. ​ § 12406, which permits federalizing National Guard troops to address foreign invasions, rebellions, or law enforcement needs. ​
- Legal challenges focus on whether conditions in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago meet the criteria for federal troop deployment. ​

Recent Deployments and Legal Challenges

- Trump has deployed National Guard troops to cities with Democratic governors, citing rising crime rates and the need for federal law enforcement support. ​
- Legal disputes have arisen, particularly in Chicago, where a judge ruled the deployment unnecessary, and similar rulings occurred in Los Angeles and Portland. ​
- The 9th Circuit Court has paused lower court orders blocking deployments, emphasizing deference to presidential authority in determining troop necessity. ​

Key Legal Cases and Acts

- Martin v. Mott (1827) established that a president's decision to call up militia cannot be questioned, though interpretations vary today regarding judicial review. ​
- The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, which has been a point of contention in recent deployments. ​
- The Insurrection Act allows broader presidential authority to deploy troops without the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, enabling action when law enforcement is impracticable. ​

Future Implications

- Trump has suggested he may invoke the Insurrection Act if other legal avenues fail. ​
- The Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the Chicago deployment could clarify the extent of presidential power under Section 12406 and its implications for future troop deployments."

Full article:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/the-presidents-power-to-deploy-troops-domestically-an-explainer/

#SCOTUSBlog #USPol #TrumpSucks #NationalGuardReactionForces #PosseComitatus #FoodInsecurity
#SoylentGreen #HungerGames
#CapitolGuards #BellRiots #FightForTheFuture

The president’s power to deploy troops domestically: an explainer

By Kelsey Dallas
Updated on Oct. 28 at 9:16 p.m.

Since June, President Donald Trump has ordered several #NationalGuard deployments within the United States, often against the wishes of the Democratic governors of the states where troops are being sent. The resulting legal battles have put a spotlight on the president’s authority to federalize troops and use them domestically. How far, exactly, does this power extend?

"Overview:
This document explores President Trump's authority to deploy National Guard troops domestically, highlighting legal frameworks, recent deployments, and ongoing court challenges. ​

Presidential Authority and Legal Framework

- The Constitution grants Congress the power to call forth the militia, while the president commands troops under Article II. ​
- The Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to call troops for domestic insurrections or to enforce U.S. laws. ​
- Trump has invoked 10 U.S.C. ​ § 12406, which permits federalizing National Guard troops to address foreign invasions, rebellions, or law enforcement needs. ​
- Legal challenges focus on whether conditions in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago meet the criteria for federal troop deployment. ​

Recent Deployments and Legal Challenges

- Trump has deployed National Guard troops to cities with Democratic governors, citing rising crime rates and the need for federal law enforcement support. ​
- Legal disputes have arisen, particularly in Chicago, where a judge ruled the deployment unnecessary, and similar rulings occurred in Los Angeles and Portland. ​
- The 9th Circuit Court has paused lower court orders blocking deployments, emphasizing deference to presidential authority in determining troop necessity. ​

Key Legal Cases and Acts

- Martin v. Mott (1827) established that a president's decision to call up militia cannot be questioned, though interpretations vary today regarding judicial review. ​
- The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, which has been a point of contention in recent deployments. ​
- The Insurrection Act allows broader presidential authority to deploy troops without the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, enabling action when law enforcement is impracticable. ​

Future Implications

- Trump has suggested he may invoke the Insurrection Act if other legal avenues fail. ​
- The Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the Chicago deployment could clarify the extent of presidential power under Section 12406 and its implications for future troop deployments."

Full article:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/the-presidents-power-to-deploy-troops-domestically-an-explainer/

#SCOTUSBlog #USPol #TrumpSucks #NationalGuardReactionForces #PosseComitatus #FoodInsecurity
#SoylentGreen #HungerGames
#CapitolGuards #BellRiots #FightForTheFuture

The president’s power to deploy troops domestically: an explainer

By Kelsey Dallas
Updated on Oct. 28 at 9:16 p.m.

Since June, President Donald Trump has ordered several #NationalGuard deployments within the United States, often against the wishes of the Democratic governors of the states where troops are being sent. The resulting legal battles have put a spotlight on the president’s authority to federalize troops and use them domestically. How far, exactly, does this power extend?

"Overview:
This document explores President Trump's authority to deploy National Guard troops domestically, highlighting legal frameworks, recent deployments, and ongoing court challenges. ​

Presidential Authority and Legal Framework

- The Constitution grants Congress the power to call forth the militia, while the president commands troops under Article II. ​
- The Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to call troops for domestic insurrections or to enforce U.S. laws. ​
- Trump has invoked 10 U.S.C. ​ § 12406, which permits federalizing National Guard troops to address foreign invasions, rebellions, or law enforcement needs. ​
- Legal challenges focus on whether conditions in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago meet the criteria for federal troop deployment. ​

Recent Deployments and Legal Challenges

- Trump has deployed National Guard troops to cities with Democratic governors, citing rising crime rates and the need for federal law enforcement support. ​
- Legal disputes have arisen, particularly in Chicago, where a judge ruled the deployment unnecessary, and similar rulings occurred in Los Angeles and Portland. ​
- The 9th Circuit Court has paused lower court orders blocking deployments, emphasizing deference to presidential authority in determining troop necessity. ​

Key Legal Cases and Acts

- Martin v. Mott (1827) established that a president's decision to call up militia cannot be questioned, though interpretations vary today regarding judicial review. ​
- The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, which has been a point of contention in recent deployments. ​
- The Insurrection Act allows broader presidential authority to deploy troops without the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, enabling action when law enforcement is impracticable. ​

Future Implications

- Trump has suggested he may invoke the Insurrection Act if other legal avenues fail. ​
- The Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the Chicago deployment could clarify the extent of presidential power under Section 12406 and its implications for future troop deployments."

Full article:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/the-presidents-power-to-deploy-troops-domestically-an-explainer/

#SCOTUSBlog #USPol #TrumpSucks #NationalGuardReactionForces #PosseComitatus #FoodInsecurity
#SoylentGreen #HungerGames
#CapitolGuards #BellRiots #FightForTheFuture

The president’s power to deploy troops domestically: an explainer

By Kelsey Dallas
Updated on Oct. 28 at 9:16 p.m.

Since June, President Donald Trump has ordered several #NationalGuard deployments within the United States, often against the wishes of the Democratic governors of the states where troops are being sent. The resulting legal battles have put a spotlight on the president’s authority to federalize troops and use them domestically. How far, exactly, does this power extend?

"Overview:
This document explores President Trump's authority to deploy National Guard troops domestically, highlighting legal frameworks, recent deployments, and ongoing court challenges. ​

Presidential Authority and Legal Framework

- The Constitution grants Congress the power to call forth the militia, while the president commands troops under Article II. ​
- The Militia Act of 1792 allows the president to call troops for domestic insurrections or to enforce U.S. laws. ​
- Trump has invoked 10 U.S.C. ​ § 12406, which permits federalizing National Guard troops to address foreign invasions, rebellions, or law enforcement needs. ​
- Legal challenges focus on whether conditions in cities like Los Angeles, Portland, and Chicago meet the criteria for federal troop deployment. ​

Recent Deployments and Legal Challenges

- Trump has deployed National Guard troops to cities with Democratic governors, citing rising crime rates and the need for federal law enforcement support. ​
- Legal disputes have arisen, particularly in Chicago, where a judge ruled the deployment unnecessary, and similar rulings occurred in Los Angeles and Portland. ​
- The 9th Circuit Court has paused lower court orders blocking deployments, emphasizing deference to presidential authority in determining troop necessity. ​

Key Legal Cases and Acts

- Martin v. Mott (1827) established that a president's decision to call up militia cannot be questioned, though interpretations vary today regarding judicial review. ​
- The Posse Comitatus Act (1878) limits military involvement in domestic law enforcement, which has been a point of contention in recent deployments. ​
- The Insurrection Act allows broader presidential authority to deploy troops without the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, enabling action when law enforcement is impracticable. ​

Future Implications

- Trump has suggested he may invoke the Insurrection Act if other legal avenues fail. ​
- The Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the Chicago deployment could clarify the extent of presidential power under Section 12406 and its implications for future troop deployments."

Full article:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/the-presidents-power-to-deploy-troops-domestically-an-explainer/

#SCOTUSBlog #USPol #TrumpSucks #NationalGuardReactionForces #PosseComitatus #FoodInsecurity
#SoylentGreen #HungerGames
#CapitolGuards #BellRiots #FightForTheFuture

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday -September 30 – SCOTUSblog

Newsletter

SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, September 30

By Kelsey Dallas and Nora Collins, on Sep 30, 2025

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s investiture ceremony took place on this day in 2022, but she actually had been serving on the court for three months by that point after taking the Constitutional Oath and Judicial Oath on June 30. As the most junior justice, she’s in charge of taking notes during the justices’ private conferences, among other tasks.

Morning Reads

• Federal courts may quickly face curtailed operations if government shuts down (Devin Dwyer, ABC News) — Federal courts may be forced to “quickly curtail operations” if the funding battle in Congress leads to a government shutdown this week, but the Supreme Court “would be largely unaffected,” according to ABC News. “In the event of a lapse of appropriations, the Court will continue to conduct its normal operations,” Supreme Court spokeswoman Patricia McCabe told ABC. “The Court will rely on permanent funds not subject to annual approval, as it has in the past, to maintain operations through the duration of short-term lapses of annual appropriations.” Lower courts, on the other hand, may have to delay trials and other hearings, because they have fewer funds on hand due, in part, to “years of tighter budgets and rising costs.”
• The Roberts court turns 20 (Kelsey Reichmann, Courthouse News Service) — Monday marked 20 years since Chief Justice John Roberts became the leader of the Supreme Court. And as the Roberts court enters its third decade, it’s preparing to take on a number of major issues, including “elections, free speech and executive authority,” reports Courthouse News Service. “While the justices have pushed back against claims of judicial activism, the Supreme Court 2025 lineup presents a slew of opportunities for the Roberts court to overturn precedent and issue decisions that could ripple across the U.S. for the next 20 years.”
• ‘The Supreme Court got it wrong’: SC Attorney General calls for death penalty for child rapists (WIS News 10 Staff) — Nearly half of state attorneys general sent a letter to the Justice Department and White House General Counsel this month in which they called on federal officials to support their effort to challenge a 2008 Supreme Court decision that “barred states from imposing the death penalty in cases of child rape where the victim did not die,” according to WIS News 10 in South Carolina. That decision, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, said that imposing the death penalty in such cases violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
• Ex-Michigan football players vow to appeal after NIL lawsuit against BTN, NCAA dismissed (Tony Garcia, Detroit Free Press) — It’s been four years since the Supreme Court shook up the world of college sports by holding that the NCAA had violated antitrust laws by limiting the kinds of compensation its schools could provide to student-athletes. That decision cleared the way for college athletes to be paid for their name, image, and likeness, or NIL, rights, while also prompting a new wave of lawsuits. One such suit brought by 300 former Michigan athletes against the NCAA and Big Ten Network over the use of their NIL rights was recently dismissed by a district court, which determined that “it fell outside of the statute of limitations,” according to the Detroit Free Press. The athletes’ attorney has vowed to appeal all the way “to the Supreme Court if necessary.”
• The Roberts Court Turns Twenty (Steven Vladeck, One First) — Steve Vladeck also covered the first 20 years of the Roberts court on Monday and contended that the chief justice is not doing enough to steer the court to more stable ground as it struggles with a reputational crisis. “Roberts could move the Court by voting differently in some of these cases; he has chosen not to. Roberts could speak up more about the unprecedented institutional (and physical) threats to the judiciary; save for one cryptic statement about impeachment, he has chosen not to. Roberts could write separately in cases in which he believes he is obliged to grant emergency relief to the Trump administration but doesn’t wish to condone its (public or litigation) behavior; he has chosen not to,” Vladeck wrote.
• MORE ONLINE….

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: SCOTUStoday for Tuesday, September 30 – SCOTUSblog

#2025 #America #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Opinion #Politics #Resistance #Science #SCOTUS #SCOTUSblog #September30 #SupremeCourt #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USSupremeCourt #UnitedStates

When I get depressed by our #polarized culture, a #SCOTUS term always makes me feel better. Download #SCOTUSblog's stat pack and see how the justices aren't nearly as divided (or in the same ways) as talking heads insist. #Reasonableness IS possible. https://www.scotusblog.com/stat-pack-2025/

A law faculty member asks "How would you advise us to be informed given the loss of so many local newspapers?" Greenhouse suggests people follow #SCOTUSblog (I think the faculty member was asking about keeping up with our own local news though.) #SCOTUS #DefendingDemocracy

#scotus skroowed the pooch on this case. They missed a golden opportunity to rule that the Berne Copyright Convention is incompatible with the US Constitition, and that, as directed by the #constitution , #copyright in the US is currently unconstitutional and should expire after 28 years.

#Copyright was intended to last for a limited time, not to provide a continuing income stream for creators, and certainly not for the #heirs and #estates.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/justices-rule-against-andy-warhol-estate-in-copyright-dispute/

#copyrights #copyrightlaw #archivist #scotusblog #fairuse #fairuseweek #fairusedoctrine #publicdomain #PublicDomainDayCountdown #publicdomainday #publicdomainday #publicdomainday2023 #libraryofcongress

#SCOTUSblog #PUERTORICO #SCOTUS #PROMESA
👁️
"You might think the first question for the justices is to explain why the board might have sovereign immunity"(...)

"But that is not the question the justices agreed to review" 💁🏻‍♀️

[URL link was changed:]
https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/justices-puerto-rico-public-records-dispute/