One year ago, the Supreme Court had just wrapped up the 2024-25 term with a series of high-profile rulings, including decisions limiting the availability of universal injunctions and upholding a state ban on certain medical treatments for transgender minors. It was time for the summer recess, when the court typically takes a break from considering petitions for review, hearing arguments, and releasing decisions, and the justices typically take a break from ... each other. Instead, they travel, spend time with loved ones, and teach seminars.
But last year’s recess did not turn out to be typical. While the justices did squeeze in speaking engagements and vacations, they also handled several significant matters on the court’s interim or emergency docket, addressing requests from the Trump administration to, among other things, be allowed to reduce the size of the federal workforce, fire three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, terminate nearly $800 million in grants, and more freely make immigration stops in the Los Angeles area.
In responding to these requests, the justices had to engage with multiple briefs and, in some cases, produce separate writings. All told, seven of the nine justices wrote separately at least once last summer in an interim docket case involving the Trump administration.
While that may still add up to less work than many adults do in July, August, and September, some court watchers feared that it spelled trouble for the justices, who are believed to benefit from the time apart. “I really do have deep fears that the incredible rate of decision making over this summer is going to have long-term negative consequences for dynamics within the Supreme Court itself,” said Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School, during the SCOTUSblog Summit last September.
While we don’t know what, if any, effect the lack of a true summer break actually had on the justices, we do know that tensions seemed to be high throughout this term. Things came to something of a head in April, when Justice Sonia Sotomayor made the unusual move of openly criticizing a fellow justice – she suggested that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in last summer’s interim docket case on immigration stops misrepresented the actual impact of such stops and stated that this came “from a man whose parents were professionals ... [a]nd probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” (Sotomayor later apologized for her remarks.) And Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described her conservative colleagues’ emergency docket decisions in favor of the Trump administration as “scratch-paper musings” that “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.”
That unexpected April drama gave way to the more standard fireworks of opinion season, when justices often exchange at least a few written barbs. Indeed, the end-of-term skirmishes started a bit early this year, with the release of a major ruling on the Voting Rights Act on April 29. Louisiana v. Callais limited the application of a key VRA provision barring racial discrimination in voting and led to follow-up orders clearing the way for Louisiana and Alabama to use new congressional maps. When the court agreed to finalize the Callais ruling sooner than is typical to create more time for redistricting, Jackson contended that it had “spawned chaos.” In a concurring opinion supporting the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito responded that Jackson’s rhetoric “lacks restraint.”
The court released several more major rulings over the past two weeks, on such issues as birthright citizenship, the president’s power to fire the heads of independent agencies, transgender athletes, and immigration. In addition to the (perhaps expected) moments of indignation in written opinions, there was a jarring comment in the courtroom after Sotomayor read from her dissent in a case on asylum seekers. Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, expressed surprise at her remarks, saying, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I know there would be a dissent read.” (The court later said that the moment resulted from a “misunderstanding on Justice Alito’s part.”)
But last week, the justices released their final rulings in argued cases and orders from their “clean-up” conference, clearing out petitions for review that had been awaiting the results of this term’s work. They were free to say, as Chief Justice John Roberts recently put it, “see you in September.”
The summer ahead
Looking out at the legal landscape in early July, it appears unlikely that the Trump administration will have as much work for the justices this summer, although cases can develop quickly. As it stands, there is one notable matter pending on the court’s interim docket, and it does not involve the administration.
The pending dispute is an effort by a student group and trade association to bar Texas from enforcing a law that imposes age-verification and parental-consent requirements on minors’ access to apps. In December 2025, a U.S. district judge temporarily blocked the law, called the App Store Accountability Act, from taking effect, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit put that ruling on hold. The students and trade association contend that Texas’ policy violates the First Amendment, while Texas counters that the law can overcome the First Amendment challenge because it serves a substantial state interest. The matter is fully briefed, so the court could act at any time.
Possible contenders to disrupt the justices’ summer recess are a dispute over construction of a new White House ballroom and the president’s effort to use the U.S. Postal Service to limit mail-in voting.
As to the former, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is weighing the $400 million White House ballroom project, which has been challenged by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The nonprofit claims that the administration needed congressional approval before starting construction, while the administration counters that such construction projects are not reviewable in the courts. A federal judge in D.C. previously put above-ground work on the ballroom on hold, but the D.C. Circuit allowed construction to move forward amid the legal challenge. If the D.C. Circuit halts the project with a ruling this summer, the administration would likely come to the Supreme Court.
The second case centers on Trump’s executive order from March titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” Among other guidance, the order instructs USPS to work in coordination with states to ensure that only eligible voters case mail-in ballots. A federal judge in Boston blocked this aspect of the order in late June, and the Trump administration has since signaled that it will appeal that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in hopes of being able to implement its planned changes to mail-in voting in time for this year’s midterm elections.
So until or unless these disputes or others pop up on the emergency docket, the justices may be able to get more of a summer break than the last time around.