Less than three weeks have passed since the Supreme Court opened its 2026-27 term, yet an opinion already appears on the court’s Opinions of the Court webpage. The case, FCC v. Brown, concerns the Court’s approval of an emergency petition filed by the Federal Communications Commission. That order blocks a lower court order requiring the FCC to decide quickly on a challenge to its “public notice,” which extended favorable advertising rates to political parties and joint fundraising committees.
The unsigned, five-page opinion is about four-and-a-half pages longer than many emergency docket decisions. The court’s typical brevity in such orders has long been a topic of debate. Some commentators and justices criticize these short, unexplained decisions. Others have claimed that the court needs to be careful about what it puts into writing and that it won’t be able to quickly respond to what the applicants themselves often describe as emergencies if the justices are expected – or required – to provide fully reasoned opinions.
Trump Administration’s Emergency Petitions Fuel Debate
President Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 intensified this debate. His administration has sought emergency relief around three dozen times in disputes involving immigration, funding cuts, and mail-in voting. In response, the Supreme Court has issued several more substantial opinions in interim docket cases since late August. These appear on the “Opinions of the Court” page, where formal opinions in argued cases also reside.
The court’s website does not organize along the typical oral argument versus interim docket lines. Interim docket decisions appear in one of three locations, depending on the writing’s extent and author.
More substantial interim docket decisions, like FCC v. Brown, appear on the “Opinions of the Court” page, where the court also releases opinions in argued cases, summary reversals, and orders dismissing argued cases without deciding them. This page also includes summary reversals and orders dismissing argued cases without deciding them. Users can access past terms by clicking on the listed years. For example, “2025” shows opinions from the 2025-26 term. These include West Virginia v. B.P.J., National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, and Trump v. Barbara from the final opinion day.
Related Post: Delhi protests spark Supreme Court petitions
Decoding Supreme Court Docket Numbers and Locations
Interim docket cases have an “A” in the middle of their docket number, like 26A388, while nearly all cases on the oral argument docket have a hyphen, like 24-43. Oral argument cases contain a hyphen, like 24-43. The “A” indicates the case came as an application for relief rather than a petition granted through the certiorari process. Exceptions exist. Interim docket applications that are taken up for argument, like Trump v. Cook (25A312),… have both an “A” in the “Docket” column and a justice’s initials (rather than “PC”) in the “Justice” column.
Before the recent increase in per curiam decisions on the interim docket, many decisions on high-profile emergency applications appeared on a page accessed by hovering over “Opinions” and clicking “Opinions Relating to Orders.” This page hosts decisions when the majority offers only a brief explanation, accompanied by longer concurrences or dissents from individual justices. Since January 2025, many Trump administration applications have been published there. They involved brief orders with separate writings, often dissenting opinions from the court’s three Democratic appointees.
Where to Find Interim Docket Decisions on the Court’s Website
The third location for interim docket decisions is the “Orders of the Court” page under “Case Documents.” This lists orders without case names as “Order List” or “Miscellaneous Order.” Order lists typically release Monday mornings after Friday conferences. Miscellaneous orders include capital case decisions, single justice orders in interim matters, and full court orders in emergency cases—all without explanation. The order in FCC v. Brown appeared on this page with no accompanying reasoning.
The debate over the court’s explanations for interim docket decisions has intensified. Justices Kagan and Barrett recently fielded congressional questions on the topic. Kagan noted the court’s recent effort to reduce confusion by writing more. She recalled cases where “we did so little explanation of what lay behind our order that lower courts had a great deal of difficulty trying to figure out what that order was.”
