President Trump’s three Supreme Court picks are backing his agenda in case after case, and the numbers prove it.
Story Snapshot
- Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett have sided with the Trump administration in the large majority of emergency docket cases in 2025 and 2026.
- A New York Times analysis found Gorsuch backing Trump 95% of the time, Kavanaugh 89%, and Barrett 79%.
- The Supreme Court ruled for the Trump administration in 20 of at least 24 emergency docket cases tracked by SCOTUSblog in 2025.
- A rare loss came when the Court struck down Trump’s global tariffs in a 6-3 ruling.
- Trump-appointed appeals court judges backed his policies 133 times and opposed them only 12 times.
Emergency Docket Numbers Favor the Administration
Trump’s three Supreme Court appointees have compiled a strong track record backing his administration on the Court’s emergency docket. A New York Times analysis of emergency applications during Trump’s second term found Gorsuch siding with the administration 95% of the time, Kavanaugh 89%, and Barrett 79%. Overall, the Trump administration won 84% of these fast-track cases, a number that stands out compared to past presidents.
SCOTUSblog’s own year-end count backs this up. The site tracked at least 24 emergency docket rulings involving Trump administration actions in 2025 alone. The Court sided with the administration in 20 of those cases and against it only four times. Newsweek reported an even more striking run earlier in the year, when the justices approved 15 straight emergency requests from the administration starting in April.
Lower Courts Show the Same Pattern
The pattern isn’t limited to the Supreme Court. A separate New York Times review of Trump-appointed appeals court judges found they sided with his administration’s policies 133 times and against it only 12 times through 2025. That kind of consistency at multiple court levels shows Trump’s judicial picks are doing what conservatives hoped: applying the law as written instead of bending to political pressure from the left.
A Brennan Center review found the administration winning roughly 80% of more than 30 emergency applications in the year after Trump’s second term began, usually without a full written opinion explaining the reasoning. Whether framed as a win for the rule of law or criticized as an abuse of the so-called “shadow docket,” the numbers themselves are not in dispute.
Barrett’s Occasional Breaks Draw MAGA Criticism
Justice Barrett has drawn the most scrutiny from Trump’s base despite her overall 79% support rate. She authored a 5-4 ruling letting states count mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day, and she joined decisions striking down global tariffs and blocking an executive order on birthright citizenship. Legal scholars still describe her as a reliably conservative vote, but these specific breaks are the ones MAGA supporters remember most.
The tariff ruling stung the hardest. The Court ruled 6-3 that Trump lacked the authority to unilaterally impose tariffs on imports, upholding a lower court’s finding that the tariffs violated laws meant for genuine national emergencies. Trump reacted with visible anger to the decision, calling out what he saw as judicial overreach on an issue central to his trade agenda.
What the Numbers Don’t Show
Tracking vote percentages offers real insight, but it has limits. Emergency docket rulings are usually quick, unsigned orders without full explanations, unlike final merits decisions that come after complete briefing and oral argument. Different researchers also count cases differently, which is why estimates range from a Bloomberg Law figure of 75% support to the Times’ 84% figure. The trend, though, is unmistakable.
Mail-In Voting Case Tests the Pattern Again
The administration’s latest emergency application asks the Supreme Court to let it enforce new restrictions on mail-in voting before the midterms. This case will offer another data point for the “wall of receipts” conservatives are building on Trump’s three appointees. Given the pattern so far, supporters of election integrity reforms have reason for cautious optimism about how the Court might rule.
For conservatives frustrated by years of activist judges blocking common-sense policies, this record matters. Trump’s appointees are proving they can be counted on to uphold the executive branch’s lawful authority, even when the legacy media frames every administration win as controversial. The receipts keep piling up, and they tell a clear story about who is actually following the Constitution.
Sources:
reason.com, independent.co.uk, abc.net.au, scotusblog.com, newsweek.com, nytimes.com, campaignlegal.org
