Supreme Court Considers Emergency Filings Amid Summer Recess

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decisions on emergency filings, particularly those regarding mail-in voting, could have direct implications for Delaware's electoral processes and the administration of elections within the state. Similarly, rulings on immigration policies could affect federal enforcement actions within Delaware.

---

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is actively managing its emergency docket while on summer recess, with several high-profile requests pending before the justices. On Friday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to halt a lower-court ruling that would stop construction of a new White House ballroom. Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the district court's ruling, which had temporarily blocked construction, as "extraordinary and unlawful." Earlier, on July 27, the Trump administration filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to allow implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order on mail-in voting. Twelve states subsequently filed similar requests. A group of 23 states and the District of Columbia, who are challenging the order, asked the court to deny these applications on August 3. On August 12, the Trump administration urged the justices to issue a decision on the matter. Historically, on this date in 1937, the Senate confirmed Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Black served for over 34 years, making him one of the longest-serving justices in the court's history. **Appeals Court Decisions** Federal appeals courts have issued rulings in several cases involving the Trump administration. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit rejected the administration’s approach to mandatory detention for noncitizens apprehended within the country. This ruling concluded that the administration's expansion of detention without bond was a reinterpretation of existing immigration laws. This marks the seventh federal appeals court to reject this aspect of the administration's policy, creating a 7-2 split among federal appeals courts on the issue. Legal observers anticipate the Supreme Court may address this divergence. Separately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit dismissed a case concerning the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. The court dismissed the case after the administration removed the plaintiffs from the U.S. using other legal authorities. Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod stated, "This development is unobjectionable. The Supreme Court expressly said that the government could remove the named petitioners and putative class under other laws." Regarding voter rolls, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit announced on Friday that it would not rehear a case involving the Justice Department's attempt to access Michigan's unredacted voter rolls. Nine Republican-appointed judges expressed some support for the Trump administration’s arguments in the decision. Prior to this, the Justice Department’s efforts to collect voter rolls from various states and Washington, D.C., had not received support from federal judges in cases where courts had ruled. Twenty-two trial judges had previously sided against the department, with the most recent instance occurring in Nevada. **Court Access** The Supreme Court continues its pilot program for public access to oral arguments, allowing individuals to enter an online lottery for seats. Applications for a given argument close four weeks prior to the argument date. The court notifies applicants three weeks in advance whether they have been selected, not selected, or waitlisted. If selected, individuals have 24 hours to confirm. Each person may enter once per argument, and a single application can cover up to four people. The selection process is automated. For those unable to use the online system, the court accepts entries by phone or mail to the Marshal’s office. Attendees for oral arguments are advised to arrive an hour before the scheduled start time, entering through the south visitor’s entrance. Electronic devices are not permitted in the courtroom but can be stored in lockers. Seats for the 10 a.m. argument are filled 15 to 30 minutes before the session begins. The court also reserves seats for individuals waiting in line on the morning of an argument. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer shared a moment during the 2013 argument in *Delia v. E.M.A.* after an attorney began by addressing the Chief Justice's point and Justice Breyer's question. Justice Breyer noted, "It's the same point," a statement echoed by Chief Justice Roberts.