In recent analysis, the New York Times explored the Supreme Court’s emergency docket and its decision in 2016 to stay President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. This marked a significant moment in judicial history as it was the first time the court intervened preemptively on such a substantial executive action without a preceding appellate court ruling. The Times highlighted this as a break from traditional court procedures, noting the decision’s speed, secrecy, lack of a written opinion, and a clear partisan split in the vote. However, much of this characterization may not hold under scrutiny.
Data-driven insights from SCOTUSblog provide a deeper examination of what the Times got both right and wrong. The uniqueness of the 2016 decision, as correctly identified by the Times, lay in its interventionist nature—never before had the court halted such significant regulatory action ahead of an appellate court’s ruling. This set a precedent for the court stepping in under emergency conditions, particularly when considering regulatory actions.
Despite this novel outcome, the deliberative processes employed by the justices were not unprecedented, as the Times seems to suggest. Historical records, like those examined from Justice John Paul Stevens’ archives, indicate that such processes, including the use of internal memos and discussions, have long been part of the court’s modus operandi. Memos exchanged during the deliberations were characterized by a collegial back-and-forth, similar to handling prior emergencies where justices routinely cited external sources and engaged in personal exchanges using first names—practices far from exclusive to this case.
The portrayal by the New York Times of Chief Justice John Roberts as a “bulldozer” for his decisive stance on the matter could be misleading. Historical memoranda reveal that pointed critiques and robust debate are not uncommon in such high-stakes considerations, drawing parallels to exchanges in past cases like Moore v. Texas. Therefore, while Roberts’ memo was assertive, it was consistent with established practices, focusing on legal standards such as irreparable harm and the prospect of case success.
The overarching takeaway is that the Supreme Court’s approach in 2016 was more about responding to a novel legal question than reinventing its emergency docket processes. This concrete procedural framework had existed and been utilized in various forms, resulting in a robust dialogue rather than a sudden shift in judicial philosophy. For an intricate understanding of this decision and its implications, legal professionals can further examine the details provided by SCOTUSblog.