The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
How Long Did Justice Jackson's "Kafkaesque Nightmare" Dissent Hold Up Trump v. California?
In a future writing, I propose a mechanism whereby six Justices can force the release of any pending case.
On July 27, 2026, the Solicitor General submitted an emergency application in Trump v. California. This case concerns proposed regulations for mail-in ballots. The government filed its reply brief on August 12. After a flurry of litigation in the lower court, and new action by the government, the Supreme Court finally decided the case on August 24. This emergency case took nearly a month.
The majority opinion, at a brisk ten pages, finds the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the case was not yet ripe. Moreover, any alleged injuries were speculative under Clapper. The per curiam opinion reads a lot of Justice Kavanaugh's voice. I do like the word "concretize." Justice Kavanuagh has taken the lead in writing some of the Court's more significant jurisdictional cases. One would think that a former federal courts professor in the majority would get these cases, but apparently not.
Justice Sotomayor's pithy dissent covers all the bases in only four pages.
Then there is Justice Jackson. She wrote a solo twenty-page dissent that discusses the merits of the case, even though the majority only addressed the jurisdictional issues. She also warns that the Court's precedents are creating a "Kafkaesque nightmare." The only nightmare here is the fact that the Court let KBJ take nearly a month from the date of the application to write this dissent.
It seems that all of the Justices were ready to go shortly after the briefing concluded. But Jackson dragged out the process so long that the posture in the lower court changed. Some critics have faulted the Court for not addressing the recent developments. But how could they? Any change by the majority might trigger another two week delay from Justice Jackson.
Justice Jackson has proven that she sees no need for urgency when the Trump Administration submits an emergency application, especially when the case comes from the First Circuit. She slow-walked the petition in Libby v. Fectau. My nickname, the Laborious KBJ, still fits.
I will give you a preview of a future installment from my SCOTUSBlog series on Court Reform. I call it the "Release-6."
For any matter, six Justices can force the release of an opinion immediately. This rule would apply on both the merits and emergency dockets. The majority opinion could be published right away, with a notation that a dissent is forthcoming. A super-majority of the Court can bring a pending matter to an immediate conclusion. If a Justice wishes, he or she can publish the dissent at a later date, but the business of the Court will move forward.
There are some emergency matters where an immediate resolution is essential for the government or the private parties. It may also not be viable to keep an administrative stay in effect for an extended period of time. With the Release-6, six members of the Court can issue their judgment, and the dissent can come later, or not at all.
Trump v. California was a prime case. There were six clear votes to grant a stay, and a single dissenter held the matter up for weeks. Release-6. The Supreme Court forced out a ruling in A.A.R.P. v. Trump before Justices Alito and Thomas could write their dissent. Cooper v. Aaron was decided before Justice Frankfurter could finish his concurrence. In an emergency case, the Court can act before the separate writings are ready. Justice Jackson should receive the same treatment.
Facts Only
* The Solicitor General submitted an emergency application in Trump v. California on July 27, 2026.
* The government filed its reply brief on August 12.
* The Supreme Court decided the case on August 24.
* The majority opinion concluded the District Court lacked jurisdiction because the case was not ripe and alleged injuries were speculative.
* Justice Sotomayor wrote a four-page dissent.
* Justice Jackson wrote a twenty-page solo dissent addressing the merits of the case.
* The author proposes a "Release-6" mechanism allowing six Justices to force the immediate release of an opinion.
* The "Release-6" proposal applies to both merits and emergency dockets.
* A.A.R.P. v. Trump and Cooper v. Aaron are cited as examples of cases decided before separate writings were completed.
* The author references Libby v. Fectau as another case involving Justice Jackson.
Executive Summary
The Supreme Court recently resolved Trump v. California, a case regarding proposed mail-in ballot regulations. The majority determined the case was not ripe for adjudication and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction due to speculative injuries. While Justice Sotomayor provided a concise dissent, Justice Jackson authored a comprehensive twenty-page dissent focusing on the merits and criticizing existing precedents as creating a "Kafkaesque nightmare."
A dispute has emerged regarding the timeline of the decision. It is asserted that Justice Jackson's extensive writing delayed the final ruling for nearly a month, potentially causing the Court to overlook subsequent developments in the lower court. In response to this perceived inefficiency, a "Release-6" reform is proposed. This mechanism would permit a super-majority of six Justices to issue a judgment immediately, allowing the majority opinion to be published while dissents are finalized or released at a later date, ensuring that emergency matters are not stalled by individual writing processes.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is a plea for procedural efficiency in the face of emergency litigation, arguing that the right to a timely judgment should supersede the preference for a simultaneous release of all opinions.
However, the argument relies heavily on a specific interpretation of internal Court dynamics that cannot be independently verified. By attributing a month-long delay solely to one Justice's writing process, the narrative employs a pattern of individualization to frame a systemic or collaborative delay as a personal failure of "urgency." The use of a derogatory nickname ("The Laborious KBJ") suggests the argument is driven less by neutral procedural analysis and more by a specific ideological or personal friction.
Patterns detected: ARC-0012 Distortion (exaggeration to absurdity/semantic manipulation)
The root cause is a tension between two judicial philosophies: one that views the Court's output as a collective, simultaneous declaration, and another that views it as a functional mechanism for governance where speed is a primary value. The unstated assumption is that the majority's view of the law is the only "business of the Court," while the dissent is a secondary luxury that should not impede the primary function.
If "Release-6" were implemented, the cost would be a shift in the perceived authority of the dissent. Moving dissents to a "forthcoming" status could diminish their immediate impact on the legal community and the public, effectively prioritizing the winner's narrative over the minority's legal reasoning.
Bridge Questions:
Does the current system of simultaneous release serve a critical function in maintaining the legitimacy of the Court's deliberative process?
Would a "Release-6" rule be applied consistently across all ideological divides, or would it be weaponized by whichever faction holds the super-majority?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated campaign would use a specific "villain" to justify a structural change that reduces the visibility of minority opinions. While this text shares some of those traits, it presents as a specific legal commentary rather than a wide-scale influence operation.