Group of Louisiana voters urges Supreme Court to strike down major provision of the Voting Rights Act

Nuts and Bolts is a recurring series by Stephen Wermiel providing insights into the mechanics of how the Supreme Court works.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Discussion of the Supreme Court today often turns into debate about the importance of judicial independence versus the authority and power of Congress. Sometimes lost in the debate are the numerous ways in which Congress already regulates the court.

Civil Rights and Wrongs is a recurring series by Daniel Harawa covering criminal justice and civil rights cases before the court.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

Before beginning its summer recess, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Goldey v. Fields. Andrew Fields, a federal prisoner in Virginia, had alleged that Federal Bureau of Prisons officers repeatedly abused him while taking him to, and while he was held in, a special housing unit colloquially known as “the hole.” Fields tried to use the prison grievance system, but the officers refused to provide Fields with the necessary forms. Left with no other option, Fields turned to the courts.

If you’re requesting emergency relief from the Supreme Court, how long should you expect to wait for a decision? In other words, does the court really treat emergency applications as emergencies? The answer, it turns out, depends on what kind of emergency you have. Decision times for the court’s emergency, or interim relief, docket have evolved dramatically over the past decade, but not uniformly. Some applications move through in days, while others take months. 

Perhaps most striking is that speed correlates with the political direction of cases. In 2024, cases with conservative outcomes averaged 23 days to decide, while cases with liberal outcomes took 41 days – a 76% difference that reveals how the court’s approach to emergency relief is often influenced by a case’s ideological outcome.

Lawyers for a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission on Monday urged the Supreme Court to allow her to continue to serve despite President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her. “If the President is to be given new powers Congress has expressly and repeatedly refused to give him,” Slaughter’s lawyers wrote in a 40-page filing, “that decision should come from the people’s elected representatives. At a minimum,” they contended, “any such far-reaching decision to reverse a considered congressional policy judgment should not be made on the emergency docket.”

The dispute is the latest chapter in Trump’s test of his authority to terminate the board members at federal agencies that Congress created to be independent of the president. In late May, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Trump to fire Democratic appointees on the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board, who – like Slaughter – could only be removed “for cause.” A majority of the court then pointed to that ruling in July, when it allowed Trump to remove three of the five members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission while their challenges to their firings continued.

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean for the law, for lawyers and lower courts, and for people’s lives.

Please note that the views of outside contributors do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog or its staff.

As SCOTUSblog readers are likely aware, tariffs are taxes charged on goods bought from other countries. In February, President Donald Trump imposed dozens of new tariffs. Now the Supreme Court will decide whether he had the legal authority to do so.