Judge James Boasberg – Photo: New York Times

The American judicial system was not designed to operate in chaos. It was built to move deliberately. Facts first. Arguments second. Judgment last.

Simply put: the rule of law must be guided by reason rather than speed.

Today, that system is under visible, relentless, and unending pressure.

Two recent developments: One is the growing number of emergency appeals reaching the Supreme Court from the Trump administration. The other is a growing dispute over who has lawful authority to appoint U.S. attorneys when vacancies arise.

Both issues reveal how much stress the machinery of justice is now carrying on its shoulders.

In a rare public exchange during oral arguments, Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson offered us a glimpse of that stress.

Justice Kavanaugh noted that the Court is increasingly asked to intervene quickly in disputes over presidential actions. With Congress frequently gridlocked, presidents often govern through executive orders that are quickly challenged in court.

Justice Jackson raised concerns about how many of these disputes are reaching the Court through the emergency track, referred to as the “shadow docket.”

The difference between the Court’s normal process and the emergency process is striking, to say the least. Under the traditional process, justices receive extensive briefs, hear oral arguments, deliberate carefully, and issue written opinions explaining their reasoning.

Emergency decisions can arrive within days, sometimes without oral argument and occasionally with little explanation.

Speed may resolve a crisis, but it can also create uncertainty. And that’s what the Trump administration is doing in order to push through executive order after executive order.

When rulings come quickly, without detailed reasoning, lower courts must interpret their meaning. Lawyers debate the scope of the decision. Judges struggle to apply guidance that may only be partially articulated.

The Supreme Court was designed to clarify constitutional principles, not to serve as a rapid umpire for ongoing political disputes.

At the same time, another conflict is unfolding in federal courtrooms across the country.

In a sharply worded ruling, federal judge Matthew W. Brann declared that the leadership of the U.S. attorney’s office in New Jersey was operating unlawfully.

The administration, he wrote, appeared to care more about “who was running the New Jersey U.S. attorney’s office than whether it is running at all.”

Under federal law, U.S. attorneys are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. When that process stalls, however, federal district courts may legally appoint interim prosecutors to ensure that criminal prosecutions continue.

Recently, when judges exercised that authority, the Justice Department fired those court-appointed prosecutors, arguing that Article II gives the president authority over federal prosecutors.

Judge Brann warned that the consequences could be serious. If prosecutors are later deemed unlawfully appointed, he wrote, “scores of dangerous criminals could have their cases dismissed or convictions eventually reversed.”

Courts depend on legitimacy. Every indictment, trial, and conviction rests on the assumption that the officials bringing those cases possess lawful authority.

While the Framers expected conflict between branches of government, they also understood something essential: the courts must remain a place where the law stands above the struggle for power.

When political conflict begins to spill into the functioning of the justice system itself, the strain becomes visible.

And when that strain becomes visible, the country is reminded of something we too often forget: the rule of law does not sustain itself. It depends on restraint, respect for institutions, and a shared commitment to protect the machinery of justice from the battles of politics.