The Supreme Court, on Friday, finally broke its silence for the term with a decision that left many disappointed.

The high court issued its first ruling of the term, a minor decision regarding federal prisoners’ ability to challenge convictions, rather than the widely expected verdict on President Donald Trump’s tariffs program; historically, this marks only the second time in 80 years that the court has delayed its initial merits decision until January, with the prior instance occurring on Jan. 23, 2023.

The issue has sparked debate over the court’s growing workload, particularly the strain from an expanding emergency docket that has consumed much of the justices’ attention this term.

Emergency Docket Overwhelms Traditional Caseload

Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who has led the court since 2005, the justices typically release their first merits opinions by October or November, as seen in 70 of the last 80 terms, as the New York Times explains.

Yet, this term’s delay mirrors what some see as a troubling trend, with the court on seven prior occasions waiting until December, and now pushing into January for significant rulings.

The spike in emergency applications, especially from President Trump’s administration, with over 20 requests for immediate relief this year alone, dwarfs the combined eight filings from the Bush and Obama eras over 16 years.

Trump’s Emergency Requests Dominate Attention

These emergency orders, often based on brief filings without oral arguments, result in short, unexplained decisions, though some majority opinions are lengthening, possibly due to public pushback.

“The federal government has asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief from lower court orders and injunctions this term at a rate not previously seen,” noted Sarah Harrington, a lawyer with Covington & Burling and a veteran of the solicitor general’s office.

While the court has generally leaned toward supporting Trump’s urgent requests, it’s not a blank check—take the refusal to greenlight National Guard deployments in Illinois. It's a decision that prompted the administration to pause similar plans in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Portland.

Merits Docket Suffers Under Pressure

The merits docket, where cases like the tariffs challenge and upcoming arguments on birthright citizenship are pending, involves exhaustive briefs, oral arguments, and detailed opinions. Yet it’s being sidelined.

“The increasingly slow pace of opinions is another sign of how much the court’s workload has been impacted by the demands of its growing emergency docket,” observed Gregory G. Garre, a lawyer with Latham & Watkins and former U.S. solicitor general under George W. Bush.

Garre’s point hits hard: when the court is bogged down by quick-turnaround crises, the big-ticket issues that shape national policy get pushed to the back burner, leaving Americans waiting for clarity on matters that affect their livelihoods.

Public Anticipation Meets Disappointment

The courtroom buzz on Jan. 10 was palpable, with attendees expecting a tariffs ruling, only to hear Justice Sonia Sotomayor quip, “Seeing who’s here, it’s not the case you thought.”

Her words underscore a broader frustration. The court’s term, running from early October to late June, usually delivers around 60 signed merits decisions, often starting in late fall, but this year’s pace feels like a slow drip in a parched desert.

While emergency rulings may satisfy urgent needs, they often lack the depth of reasoning found in merits opinions, even if dissents and concurrences show the justices are wrestling behind closed doors. Still, it’s cold comfort for those awaiting decisions on tariffs or agency authority that could redefine economic policy for years.