Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-592_5hd5.pdf
Page Number: 8

8 

ARIZONA v. MAYORKAS 

Statement of GORSUCH, J. 

gency proclamations, Congress noted, had remained in ef-
fect  for  years  or  decades  after  the  emergency  in  question
had passed.29  At the same time, Congress recognized that
quick  unilateral  executive  action  is  sometimes  necessary
and permitted in our constitutional order.30  In an effort to 
balance these considerations and ensure a more normal op-
eration of our laws and a firmer protection of our liberties, 
Congress  adopted  a  number  of  new  guardrails  in  the  Na-
tional Emergencies Act.31 

Despite  that  law,  the  number  of  declared  emergencies
has only grown in the ensuing years.32  And it is hard not to 
wonder whether, after nearly a half century and in light of 
our Nation’s recent experience, another look is warranted. 
It  is  hard  not  to  wonder,  too,  whether  state  legislatures 
might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency 
executive powers at the state level.  At the very least, one
can hope that the Judiciary will not soon again allow itself 
to be part of the problem by permitting litigants to manip-
ulate  our  docket  to  perpetuate  a  decree  designed  for  one 
emergency to address another.  Make no mistake—decisive 
executive  action  is  sometimes  necessary  and  appropriate. 
But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, 
they  threaten  to  generate  others.    And  rule  by  indefinite
emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a de-
mocracy and civil liberties just as hollow. 

—————— 
29 Id., at 7. 
30 Id., at 1, 8–10. 
31 90 Stat. 1255 (codified at 50 U. S. C. §§1601–1651). 
32 CRS 12 (identifying dozens of existing emergencies as of 2019).