The Supreme Court’s decision to halt President Obama’s Clean Power Plan in February 2016 marked a significant moment on its emergency docket. As detailed by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak in The New York Times, this was the first time such a substantial executive regulatory action was stopped before any appellate court ruling. The leak of internal Supreme Court memos offered a glimpse into this new dimension of the emergency docket, reinforcing the action’s unprecedented nature.
While The New York Times correctly identifies the novelty and importance of the 2016 decision, it suggests this was a break from customary court procedures. However, these procedures—characterized by circuit justice recommendations, internal memos, and the justices’ deliberative processes—were not abandoned or novel. The memos, contrary to the claim of being atypical, reflected established practices long in place. For instance, justices citing external sources and using first names were standard, as seen in past cases such as the 2002 Forrester v. New Jersey Democratic Party.
However, the true divergence was the type of issue brought before the court: the request to pause a sweeping federal regulation without prior appellate court review. Consequently, the New York Times rightly notes the impact of this ruling, emphasizing the importance of the court’s willingness to consider such requests under its emergency docket. Yet, it is crucial to recognize that the deliberation reflected typical judicial processes rather than a newfound approach.
For a deeper understanding of the dynamics surrounding this pivotal ruling and its implications on the emergency docket, you can explore this article on SCOTUSblog that provides a comprehensive analysis of the arguments and the historical context of the court’s deliberations.