The following podcast contains advertising.

To access an ad-free version of the LawFair podcast,

become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash law fair.

That's patreon.com slash law fair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings,

rational security, chatter, law fair no bull, and the aftermath.

The shift that really happens in the mid-2010s,

I think it starts before Trump, but it really becomes visible once the Trump administration comes to office,

is that these same emergency applications are used for, you know, sort of nationwide policy disputes,

where lower courts will say block a Trump administration policy like the travel ban,

and, you know, the executive branch goes to the Supreme Court and says,

we would like you to unblock this policy while the case works its way up to you.

And, you know, there's a lot to say about those cases, the book says a lot about those cases.

The one thing I think is undeniable is that was a shift.

Right, the notion that emergency applications were appropriate fodder for

just whether policies should go into effect or not,

is not how those were approached right before the mid-2010s,

and is now fairly commonplace.

I'm Jack Goldsmith, and this is the Law Fair Podcast, May 16, 2023.

In recent years, the Supreme Court's non-marits shadow-docket has become a topic of contestation and controversy,

especially the Court's emergency orders rulings on issues ranging from immigration,

to abortion, to COVID-19 restrictions.

...