Justice Discusses Lower Court Application of Emergency Supreme Court Orders

A Supreme Court justice stated that questions about whether lower court judges should follow brief emergency docket orders or longer-standing precedent are legitimate. The remarks came during an interview conducted by a district judge earlier this month.

The district judge described situations in which a short emergency order appeared to countermand prior Supreme Court precedent. The justice responded that lower court judges face a legitimate concern when an early Supreme Court intervention signals the likely outcome of a case.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits intentional racial discrimination but does not require states to create majority-minority districts. The decision found Louisiana's congressional map with two majority-Black districts to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The court later issued an 8-1 order directing faster transmission of its decision to lower courts. The order allowed Louisiana to proceed with new maps during the current election cycle rather than using the map already ruled unconstitutional. A justice dissented from the 8-1 order, stating that the decision had created chaos in Louisiana and represented an unprincipled use of power.

Three justices wrote a concurring opinion responding that the dissent would require elections to proceed under an unconstitutional map and described the dissent's arguments as groundless.