Justice Jackson's Lengthy Dissent Delays Resolution in Trump v. California

In the Trump v. California emergency petition, the government moved on July 27 and the Supreme Court concluded the case on August 24, ruling the District Court had no jurisdiction and that any alleged injuries were speculative. The majority opinion, a concise ten-page per curiam decision, reflected Justice Kavanaugh's influence, while Justice Sotomayor contributed a four-page dissent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, however, submitted a solo twenty-page dissent that examined the case's substantive issues, despite the majority limiting itself to jurisdictional questions.

Her prolonged dissent delayed the final posture in the lower court, leading some observers to fault the Court for not addressing new developments. Critics note that Jackson’s approach often slows emergency filings, as seen in earlier cases like Libby v. Fectau. The article proposes a “Release-6” rule allowing six justices to issue a ruling immediately, with dissenters publishing later, to prevent such delays.