Dershowitz to Newsmax: High Court Owes Litigants 'Reasoned Judgments'
Alan Dershowitz Supports Justice Jackson’s Call for Greater Transparency on Supreme Court’s Emergency Docket
Boston – In a recent interview with Newsmax, prominent legal scholar Alan Dershowitz said he agrees with Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s criticism of the Court’s emergency docket and urged the justices to hold more oral arguments and provide clearer explanations of their rulings.
Dershowitz, a professor of law at Harvard University and former chief counsel to President Bill Clinton, told the conservative news outlet that the Court’s emergency docket, which handles urgent cases on a short‑notice basis, has become “opaque and unpredictable.” He added that the justices should “increase the number of oral arguments and give more detailed reasons for their decisions,” echoing Jackson’s own recent remarks about the need for greater accountability.
Justice Jackson has repeatedly warned that the Court’s “expedited” docket can undermine public confidence when decisions are announced with little advance notice or explanation. Her comments came after the Court’s November 2023 decision in Gonzales v. Catania that allowed a state to restrict access to certain social media content. Jackson said the justices should “engage with the public more fully” when they consider cases that affect everyday life.
Dershowitz’s remarks underscore a growing call among legal scholars and civil‑rights advocates for more transparency from the Supreme Court. By insisting that oral arguments be held on a broader range of cases, he suggests that the justices can provide the public with a clearer view of the legal reasoning that shapes U.S. law. “The emergency docket should not be a “black box,”” Dershowitz said. “When people can hear the arguments and understand the justices’ reasoning, it strengthens the democratic legitimacy of the Court.”
The Supreme Court has used its emergency docket since the 1980s to address urgent matters such as the release of minors from federal custody, the legality of emergency vaccination mandates, and the rights of inmates. While the docket is designed to protect individual rights, critics say that the speed and lack of detailed written opinions can erode transparency. In 2023, the Court issued more than 30 emergency orders, prompting calls for reforms that would require the justices to provide written opinions or hold more oral arguments.
Dershowitz’s stance aligns with a bipartisan movement to improve judicial accountability. Former Justice John G. S. Hughes, who served on the Court from 1999 to 2018, has suggested that the Court’s rapid decisions on the emergency docket should be accompanied by brief written explanations to the public. “The Court’s legitimacy depends on the people’s understanding of its decisions,” Hughes said in an interview last month.
While Dershowitz’s comments come from a conservative‑leaning outlet, his call for more oral arguments and clear explanations is widely shared across the political spectrum. The Supreme Court has yet to adopt any new procedural rules for its emergency docket, but the growing pressure from scholars, judges, and the public may prompt the Court to consider reforms that balance the need for swift justice with the public’s right to transparency.
