Supreme Court shows higher win rate for Trump‑era emergency requests than Biden’s
The Supreme Court has handled dozens of emergency applications involving federal executive actions since President Trump took office in 2017. A new study of 165 applications, covering 109 distinct controversies, reveals that the Trump administrations won a larger share of cases when the government itself asked the Court to intervene.
During Trump’s first term, the government was the applicant in 34 of 39 core cases and succeeded in 25 of 33 decided requests (76%). In his second term, the government filed 42 of 45 applications and prevailed in 27 of 33 (82%). By contrast, the Biden administration filed only 18 of 81 applications and won 10 of 15 (67%).
Why the win rates differ
The mix of issues on the docket matters. Immigration cases dominate Trump’s record – 12 in the first term and 14 in the second – while Biden’s emergency filings focus on education and public‑health policies. Different policy areas bring different legal questions and lower‑court contexts, which can affect the Court’s decisions.
Source: SCOTUSblog
How the Court treats the government’s role
When the federal government is the applicant, a win means the Court lifts a lower‑court injunction and allows the executive action to proceed. When the government is the respondent, a win means the Court denies a challenger’s request, leaving the policy in place. Biden’s record looks stronger when the administration is defending its actions: it prevailed in 21 of 27 challenger‑initiated controversies (78%).
What this means for everyday people
These patterns affect anyone subject to federal policies that might be halted by a lower court – students, immigrants, patients, and small businesses. If a policy is under emergency review, the outcome can determine whether the rule stays in effect while the case proceeds. No specific deadlines are mentioned in the data, but parties involved in an emergency application must act quickly to file motions and respond to the Court’s orders.
When to consider legal help
Because emergency applications can decide whether a federal rule is applied or blocked, individuals or groups facing an imminent change should consult an attorney promptly to understand filing options, possible relief, and how a Supreme Court decision could impact their rights.
What this means: our conclusions
- What to watchHigher win rate for Trump‑era requests
The data suggest the Court is more likely to grant emergency relief when the Trump administration asks for it, which could encourage future administrations to use the docket aggressively.
- ContextBiden’s defensive success
Even though Biden filed fewer requests, it often won when defending policies, indicating the Court may be reluctant to overturn established actions.
- What to watchPolicy mix influences outcomes
Different issue areas—immigration for Trump, education/public health for Biden—appear to affect how the Court rules, so future cases will hinge on the subject matter.
- What to doImpact on affected groups
Students, immigrants, patients and businesses should monitor emergency applications because a win or loss can immediately change the availability of federal programs.
- What to doConsult counsel early
Anyone facing a sudden change in federal policy should seek legal advice promptly to explore emergency relief options before deadlines expire.
- ghost-gun atf.gov
Find a lawyer for this issue
Federal rules apply nationwide, but your options depend on your state and situation. Browse attorneys by practice area, then pick your state.
This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 19, 2026.
Source: SCOTUSblog
Supreme Court Keeps Block on Transgender Inmate Healthcare Policy
The high court declined to pause a district judge's order stopping the Federal Bureau of Prisons from enforcing a new rule that would limit hormone therapy and other gender‑affirming care for transgender prisoners.
Supreme Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Ban on Transgender Inmate Care
The high court denied the Trump administration’s request to halt gender‑affirming treatment for roughly 1,000 transgender inmates, keeping existing medical standards in place.
Supreme Court’s Wolford decision narrows how lower courts assess Second Amendment claims
The Supreme Court’s Wolford ruling limits courts to a narrow textual inquiry for the first step of the Bruen test, shifting historical analysis to the second step.
Supreme Court Halts Appeals Court Order, Keeping Discounted Political Ad Rates in Place
The high court granted the FCC’s request to stay a lower-court order, leaving current favorable advertising rates for parties and committees unchanged.
FDA Announces Rare Disease Framework to Transform Drug Review Process
The FDA launched an initiative to reimagine drug development, aiming to speed up safe treatments for rare disease patients in small populations.