WASHINGTON — Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday that the Supreme Court’s approach to emergency appeals has shifted in a way that has benefited the Trump administration’s efforts to implement its policies. Speaking at the University of Alabama School of Law, Sotomayor described the increased use of the court’s emergency docket by the Trump administration as “unprecedented” in the court’s history.

Last year, the Supreme Court frequently sided with the administration in approximately two dozen cases brought under the emergency docket, often overruling lower courts that had blocked policies deemed likely unlawful. These rulings covered a range of issues, including immigration enforcement and substantial cuts to federal funding for education programs, allowing the administration to advance its agenda while legal challenges continued.

The emergency docket allows parties to seek rapid intervention in cases still pending in lower courts, but it has become a source of contention within the court. This tension was publicly visible in a rare exchange between Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Brett Kavanaugh last month, reflecting differing views on the court’s handling of emergency appeals.

Sotomayor, part of the court’s liberal wing, has frequently dissented from decisions favorable to the Trump administration. She said conservative justices tend to view blocking executive actions or laws passed by Congress as causing irreparable harm that cannot be undone. This reasoning establishes a high threshold for challengers seeking emergency relief, making it difficult for plaintiffs—such as immigrants facing deportation or states losing education funding—to prevail at that stage.

“If you start with the presumption that there is irreparable harm to one side, then you’re going to have more grants of emergency relief. Because the other side is going to have a much harder time,” Sotomayor said, adding that this has “changed the paradigm on the court.”

While the emergency docket has often tilted toward the administration, the Supreme Court has not ruled uniformly in its favor. For example, the court rejected key elements of Trump’s tariff policies during a full hearing process involving detailed legal arguments, demonstrating that the administration’s agenda has faced significant judicial resistance outside of emergency appeals.

Sotomayor’s remarks shed light on the inner workings of the Supreme Court’s emergency decisions, which are typically issued with little explanation, illustrating how shifts in judicial philosophy have shaped the legal landscape during the Trump presidency.