The Administration Who Cried Wolf: Dangers of Repeated Use of the Emergency Docket in McMahon v. New York

Published April 16, 2026

By Ashlynn Armour

In March 2025, Linda McMahon, the newly instated Secretary of the Department of Education (DOE), implemented mass layoffs that nearly cut the DOE in half, with the intention of eventually abolishing the federal agency entirely (1;2;3;4). These layoffs eliminated entire teams and offices without prior Congressional approval. Later that month, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 14242. 90 Fed. Reg. 13679 that justified the use of the mass layoffs stating that McMahon was to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education” (5). A group of 20 states, the District of Columbia, school districts, and unions challenged these directives arguing that the department is not able to meet their statutorily mandated obligations with this reduction. The District Court sided with the schools and found that the Executive violated the separation of powers principle directed by the Constitution, the Take Care Clause, and Administrative Procedure Act. The District Court granted the preliminary injunction motion to pause the layoffs and directed the Executive to reinstate those that were laid off. The Executive sought to appeal this decision. After being denied by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Executive went to the Supreme Court for an emergency decision of relief and they were supported by the Supreme Court majority. In McMahon v. New York (2025), the US Supreme Court paused the District Court’s order (6). This ruling of temporary Supreme Court support allowed the Trump administration to continue the mass federal layoffs in the DOE. Although this decision directly impacts thousands of lives and poses questionable constitutional protection, the Supreme Court did not have to release a majority opinion explanation because it was filed through the emergency docket. Justice Sotomayor emphasizes that this is a "misuse” of the emergency docket in her dissenting opinion. Using the emergency docket to seek decisions in the effort of bypassing a full legal ruling can cause the Executive to feel emboldened when they have partisan favor with the Court.

The cases heard by the Court can be split up into two dockets: the regular and emergency docket. Oftentimes, most individuals are familiar with cases from the regular docket, also called the merits docket. These cases typically include oral arguments and signed detailed opinions where the Supreme Court fully rules on the legality of the issue at hand. These decisions can take several months. On the other hand, cases that are in need of immediate Supreme Court scrutiny are allocated to the emergency docket, also called the shadow docket or interim relief docket (7, 8). This lesser known docket is no less important with many of the cases heard involving injunctions and stays for cases ranging from extraditions to death penalties to sanctions. These faster decisions usually take several days or weeks, with the decision time averaging around 32 days for the 2024-2025 docket (9).

 An important distinction between the dockets is that the emergency docket does not fully rule on the constitutionality of the action; they mainly grant temporary orders, while the issue’s legality continues to be deliberated in the lower courts. The majority opinion is often not written out and there are no oral arguments. In the case of McMahon v. New York, there is only a dissent from Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson. This dissent emphasized the constitutional principle of separation of powers and underlined that only Congress has the power to abolish the DOE. Having an effective DOE is essential to safeguarding the educational system and opportunity for equal access to learning. Its statutorily mandated functions include the administration of federal student aid and enforcement of civil rights law to prevent discrimination. The Executive did not provide adequate and lawful justification for the mass layoffs. Justice Sotomayor stressed that the Court majority is defying constitutional principles with their decision. 

There is no Court majority opinion to explain why they decided to grant the stay that the two lower courts had previously gone against. The use of the shadow docket to avoid full legal rulings can cause the Executive to pursue incessant emergency orders to appeal to the potential partisan bias from the Court. Currently, this case is still ongoing and has now been consolidated with Somerville Public Schools et al. v. Trump (10). Because litigation battles through the Court system can take several years, the emergency docket allows the Executive to continue plausible unconstitutional acts before the Supreme Court actually reviews its legality through the regular docket. Consequently, this process produces a lack of guidance and transparency that can perpetuate confusion in the lower courts. These actions can serve as the basis for undermining the legal system because the Supreme Court’s current ruling still holds incredible weight until a full legal decision can take place. Because the standards for the regular and emergency dockets are different, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to hold a different ruling if this case goes through the regular docket.

There is already a highly selective process in place for approving shadow docket cases, including the requirement of demonstrating the prospect of winning the case based on its merits and possibility of irreparable harm from denial of an emergency decision (11). However, there needs to be regulation with clearer standards for the rulings on critical and largely impactful decisions. With the unpredictable nature of emergency decisions, monthly caps on the amount of emergency appeals allowed would seem not recommendable, but a monthly cap for cases made specifically on the behalf of a presidential administration could be a consideration. A cap could act as a deterrence on the overreliance of the shadow docket system. There could also be a type of requirement for a shortened version of a majority opinion explanation to mitigate potential turmoil from the lower courts and general public.

Overall, the emergency docket is an important part of the legal system. Having a separate docket for emergency decisions allows for more immediate Supreme Court scrutiny in a time sensitive manner. However, because emergency decisions are not ruled on their legality and there is a lack of a written majority opinion, the potential for abuse of the shadow docket is high. This mishandling was seen in the case of McMahon v. New York where the Executive used the emergency docket to get a decision from the majorly Conservative Supreme Court to pause the lower court’s constitutionally backed decision. From the perspective of the Executive, getting permission to dismantle the DOE is not an emergency. Thousands are being impacted directly from being laid off from their jobs and millions of Americans are being impacted indirectly from the effect this will have on the educational system. This case should be in the regular docket where the constitutionality of the actions can be contested and decided. The broader legal consequences of further misuse include the erosion of governmental separation of powers and continuous lower court confusion that could undermine the legal system. The potential solutions for these effects could be the requirement of a type of majority opinion explanation and a monthly cap on the number of cases that can go through the emergency docket on behalf of the Executive.


  1. “Executive Order on Closing the Department of Education.” 2025. Economic Policy Institute. March 21, 2025. https://www.epi.org/policywatch/executive-order-on-closing-parts-of-the-department-of-education/.

  2. Trump, Donald. 2025. “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The White House. March 20, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-vcommunities/.

  3. Kim, Min. 2025. “Dozens of Education Department Employees Face Layoffs as Shutdown Continues.” Chalkbeat. October 11, 2025. https://www.chalkbeat.org/2025/10/11/education-department-layoffs-government-shutdown/.

  4. S, Sotomayor. 2025. McMahon v. New York. Supreme Court of the United States.

  5. “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” 2025. Federal Register. March 25, 2025. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/25/2025-05213/improving-education-outcomes-by-empowering-parents-states-and-communities.

  6. Howe, Amy. 2025. “The Status of Trump’s RIFs.” SCOTUSblog. September 8, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/the-status-of-trumps-rifs/.

  7. “Emergency Docket 2025-26.” 2025. SCOTUSblog. October 3, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-docket-2025/.

  8. Davis, Taraleigh. 2025a. “What the Emergency Docket Actually Looks Like.” SCOTUSblog. August 20, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/08/what-the-supreme-court-emergency-docket-actually-looks-like/.

  9. Davis, Taraleigh. 2025b. “Is the Emergency Docket Really for Emergencies?” SCOTUSblog. September 16, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/is-the-emergency-docket-really-for-emergencies/.

  10. “State of New York v. McMahon 1:25-Cv-10601 (D. Mass.) | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse.” 2025. Clearinghouse.net. 2025. https://clearinghouse.net/case/46217/?doc_page=1#document-list.

  11. Burling, James. 2022. “Emergency Orders and the Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket.’” Pacific Legal Foundation. April 21, 2022. https://pacificlegal.org/emergency-orders-and-the-supreme-courts-shadow-docket/.