DrWebFeb 4

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.

Interim-Relief-Stat-Pack-2024-25-Term-1Download

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

#23Pages #Data #Embedded #EmergencyDocket #InterimReliefDocket #MeritsDocket #OtherDocket #PDF #Research #SCOTUS #SCOTUSblog #ShadowDocket #StatPack #Statistics #SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStates #TaraleighDavis #Voting
DrWebFeb 3

Tracking Trump’s Legal Cases — January 2026 Monthly Report

Tracking Trump’s Legal Cases — January 2026 Monthly Report

Editor’s Note: Coverage window: January 1–31, 2026. Assisted by ChatGPT in the analysis.

January 2026 — Key Items at a Glance

  • Federal courts continued to shape policy outcomes through interim rulings (injunctions, stays, rehearing denials).
  • Litigation over federal workforce reductions advanced into appellate and emergency-procedure lanes.
  • Judges blocked or constrained immigration status changes and SNAP-related actions at the state and regional level.
  • Legal challenges remained fragmented across venues, reinforcing courts—not Congress—as the primary gatekeepers.

Documentation note: This monthly report follows the same standards as the 2025 Annual Legal Report. For the full categorized bibliography supporting this series, see Sources & Documentation — 2025.

I. Editor’s Framing — January as a Signal Month

January 2026 did not deliver sweeping final rulings, but it clarified how legal conflict around the Trump administration is now being managed. Courts continued to rely on procedural tools—preliminary injunctions, emergency motions, rehearing denials—to control policy effects while merits litigation remains unresolved.

In practice, these interim decisions increasingly determine what policies remain in force. January therefore serves as an early indicator of pace, posture, and institutional tolerance rather than outcome.

II. Chronological Record of Key Developments

A. Federal Workforce Reductions and Appellate Litigation

On January 5, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order in American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO, et al. v. Trump, denying rehearing petitions tied to challenges against Executive Order 14210 directing large-scale federal reductions in force. The ruling did not resolve the underlying legality, but it reinforced that workforce restructuring disputes are now moving primarily through emergency and appellate channels.

B. Immigration Status Litigation and Injunctive Relief

Later in the month, a federal judge blocked the administration’s effort to terminate legal status for more than 8,400 family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from several Latin American countries. As in prior immigration cases, plaintiffs secured injunctive relief focused on immediate harm, preserving the status quo while broader legal questions proceed.

C. Benefits Administration: SNAP-Related Court Intervention

On January 28, a federal judge blocked an administration order affecting SNAP in Colorado. This case fits a recurring January pattern: state-level challenges producing rapid judicial intervention when federal directives threaten near-term disruption, even absent nationwide resolution.

D. Enforcement and Protest-Related Litigation Signals

At month’s end, reporting from Minnesota described legal action around intensified federal immigration enforcement and related protests, including a judge declining to halt certain activities. While the January rulings were limited, the disputes signal expanding litigation touching DHS enforcement, evidentiary standards, and jurisdictional authority.

III. Thematic Analysis — Patterns Emerging in January

1) Interim rulings are becoming the operational center

January reinforced a core reality of this litigation era: the most consequential decisions are often not final merits rulings but interim controls—preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders, emergency motions, and appellate posture. In practice, these interim outcomes determine which policies stay “live” while cases proceed on multi-month (or multi-year) schedules. A clear example is the late-January preliminary injunction blocking the administration’s attempt to terminate legal status for more than 8,400 family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, preserving the status quo while broader legal questions continue.

2) Immigration litigation is splintering into targeted, venue-specific restraints

Rather than a single master case, immigration disputes in January produced a series of narrow, fast-moving restraints in particular jurisdictions. Late in the month, a U.S. judge temporarily blocked a policy affecting lawful refugees in Minnesota who were awaiting green cards—another example of courts using early procedural tools to prevent immediate harm while litigation proceeds.

3) Scale and fragmentation: the “system story” is visible mainly through trackers

Individual headlines can obscure the true scope of legal conflict. Litigation trackers show the wider terrain: Just Security’s tracker (updated in early February) describes hundreds of active challenges across agencies and issue areas, documenting a litigation environment that is both high-volume and geographically dispersed. The practical effect is fragmentation—many cases, many venues, uneven timelines—making procedural developments (stays, injunctions, rehearing decisions) disproportionately important.

4) Supreme Court emergency-docket pressure remains a defining feature

The Supreme Court’s emergency docket continues to shape outcomes through stays and fast-track requests, even when merits decisions remain distant. Ballotpedia offers a running compilation of Trump-administration-related emergency orders, alongside SCOTUS-focused docket tracking, underscores how often major disputes now seek relief through emergency pathways rather than ordinary appellate pacing.

IV. What Did Not Happen — Absence as Early Data

  • No comprehensive ruling resolved broad categories of executive action.
  • No major legislative intervention reduced reliance on courts as arbiters.
  • No clear slowdown in filing volume despite procedural fatigue.

V. Impact Snapshot

  • Rule of law: Maintained primarily through judicial process rather than statutory reform.
  • Normalization: Emergency and interim procedures are now routine.
  • Public visibility: Fragmented, with systemic scale visible mainly through trackers.

VI. Sources & Documentation — January 2026 Addendum

Persistent source spine: Sources & Documentation — 2025

VII. February 2026 Watchpoints

  • Appeals activity in immigration-status and workforce cases.
  • Potential Supreme Court emergency docket engagement.
  • Expansion of state-level benefits and enforcement litigation.
#EmergencyDocket #Immigration #January2026 #MonthlyReport #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS #SNAP #SupremeCourt #TrackingTrump #Trump #TrumpSLegalCases
DrWebNov 28

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

Nancy Gertner served as a federal judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts from 1994 to 2011. (Rod Lamkey / AP)

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

In interviews, former state and federal judges warn that democracy’s guardrails may already be weakened as the rule of law begins to falter.

November 28, 2025 at 5:00 a.m. EST, Today at 5:00 a.m. EST, 11 min

By Brianna Tucker

When the White House blasted a federal judge as “partisan” for dismissing the criminal cases against former FBI director James B. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James this week, it was an attack that has become common in President Donald Trump’s second term.

For many retired federal and state supreme court judges, it was another example of the president’s assault on the judiciary and further erosion of the rule of law.

In a dozen interviews with The Washington Post, former judges and one soon-to-be-retired judge described a judiciary under incredible strain and its integrity threatened by partisan attacks, antagonistic rhetoric from public officials and ambiguous decisions handed down by the nation’s highest court.

Many judges said the politicization of judges, the Supreme Court’s expanding use of emergency dockets and sustained criticism from the Trump administration have pushed the courts and democracyto a fragile tipping point — one where cooperation with rulings and adherence to the rule of law can no longer be assumed.

Follow Trump’s second term

“There’s not a person in our country that, whether they think about it or not, does not depend upon the ability of these fundamental rights and liberties to be protected in an action in court if there is someone who violates that,” said Paul Grimm, a retired judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The consequences, judges warn, are already becoming visible in who’s willing to serve as a jurist, global shifts in judicial norms and the types of justice the U.S. system can still deliver.

Read more: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – AI image by WP.

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

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling – The Washington Post

#AmbiguousDecisions #democracy #EmergencyDocket #Endangered #FederalJudges #JudicialNorms #PartisanAttacks #PoliticizationOfJudges #RuleOfLaw #SCOTUS #StrainingCourts #USDistrictCourts #USJusticeSystem #UnitedStates

TechdirtOct 14

Justice Barrett’s Tone-Deaf Defense Of The Shadow Docket Comes As Federal Judges Revolt Against Supreme Court’s “Mystical” Orders

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://www.techdirt.com/2025/10/14/justice-barretts-tone-deaf-defense-of-the-shadow-docket-comes-as-federal-judges-revolt-against-supreme-courts-mystical-orders/

Justice Barrett’s Tone-Deaf Defense Of The Shadow Docket Comes As Federal Judges Revolt Against Supreme Court’s “Mystical” Orders

When 47 out of 65 federal judges tell The New York Times that the Supreme Court is mishandling its emergency docket and creating a “judicial crisis,” you might think a Supreme Court Jus…

Techdirt
beSpacificSep 10, 2025
#shadowdocket #emergencydocket #enabling. There is no further reason to refer 2 him as Chief Justice of anything - #JohnRoberts Acting on his Own issued an interim “administrative stay” of a federal judge’s ruling ordering #Trump administration to pay out $4 billion in #foreign #aid that had been #appropriated by #Congress. The ruling ordered the challengers to file their #brief by Friday. claw back #pocket #rescission #SCOTUS #SurpremeCourt #rubberstamp #fascism #democracy #separationofpowers