This photo shows the U.S. Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington. Traditionally, the process of getting an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court takes months and those rulings are often narrowly tailored. Emergency orders, especially during the court’s summer break, revolve around specific issues, like individual death penalty cases. But that pattern has changed in recent years with decisions coming outside the court’s normal procedures. (AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite)

This photo shows the U.S. Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington. Traditionally, the process of getting an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court takes months and those rulings are often narrowly tailored. Emergency orders, especially during the court’s summer break, revolve around specific issues, like individual death penalty cases. But that pattern has changed in recent years with decisions coming outside the court’s normal procedures. (AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite)

Shadow docket Supreme Court decisions could affect millions

Since Aug. 24, that truncated process known as the shadow docket has moved at astronomical speed.

By Gary Felds

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Traditionally, the process of getting an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court takes months and those rulings are often narrowly tailored. Emergency orders, especially during the court’s summer break, revolve around specific issues, like individual death penalty cases.

But that pattern has changed in recent years with decisions coming outside the court’s normal procedures. That has been especially true in the past two weeks. Since Aug. 24, that truncated process known as the shadow docket has moved at astronomical speed, producing decisions related to immigration, COVID-19 and evictions and, most recently, abortion. Those three decisions, with the conservative wing of the court in the majority, have the potential to affect millions of people, in a fraction of the time and outside the normal scrutiny signed opinions can bring.

“My memory is, typically, if the Supreme Court was acting in July and August, it was really that quintessential emergency appeal, dealing with something like a death penalty situation. It wasn’t like: What is immigration law going to be in our country? It wasn’t: Will tenants have certain rights? It wasn’t the big substantive questions,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.

What is the normal process?

ADVERTISEMENT
0 seconds of 0 secondsVolume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
00:00
00:00
00:00
 

Participants petition the court to hear cases. If accepted, there are oral arguments before the justices, although during the coronavirus era that has meant via telephone. Before this happens, a case usually has gone through a full review and appeal in lower courts. Those deliberations are part of the material the justices reference. Amicus briefs are submitted by parties interested in the case.

Once the arguments are heard the judges meet in conference, discuss the cases and take preliminary votes. Opinions are assigned to be written and draft opinions are exchanged and often amended and changed.

The overall process is deliberative and one where the justices justify their conclusions in somewhat lengthy written legal opinions. The process between oral argument and issued opinion takes months.

What happens on the shadow docket?

The shadow docket, a phrase coined by University of Chicago Law School professor William Baude, skips many if not all of those steps. The biggest element: It does not possess the transparency and disclosure of a typical docket. Outside of a flurry of court filings between the plaintiffs and defendants in the three recent, prominent cases, there was little interaction between the court and the participants. None of the orders issued by the majority in the three cases was signed, although at least one of them ended the protection for roughly 3.5 million people in the United States who said they faced evictions in the next two months, according to Census Bureau data from early August.

What are the cases?

The first decision dealt with the Biden administration’s attempt to end a Trump-era program that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S. With three liberal justices in dissent, the high court refused to block a lower court ruling ordering the administration to reinstate the program informally known as Remain in Mexico.

Days later the court’s conservative majority said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lacked the authority to reimpose a moratorium on evictions, a temporary ban that was put in place because of the coronavirus pandemic.

And this past week, the court allowed a new Texas law to go forward that bans most abortions in the state and is the biggest curb to the constitutional right to an abortion in decades, despite the fact the justices said there are serious questions about the constitutionality of the law.

Do any justices oppose the abbreciated process?

The liberal wing of the court has been vocal, but Chief Justice John Roberts’ comments in the abortion law case may have been the most straightforward in indicating a desire for the traditional process to give courts time to examine the “not only unusual, but unprecedented” statutory scheme.

“We are at this point asked to resolve these novel questions — at least preliminarily — in the first instance, in the course of two days, without the benefit of consideration by the District Court or Court of Appeals,” Roberts wrote. “We are also asked to do so without ordinary merits briefing and without oral argument.”

Justice Elena Kagan joined Roberts in his dissent in the abortion law case and wrote one of her own specifically about the shadow docket. “Today’s ruling illustrates just how far the Court’s ‘shadow-docket’ decisions may depart from the usual principles of appellate process,” she wrote. “That ruling, as everyone must agree, is of great consequence.”

She added that the majority ruling was missing guidance from the appeals court, included only cursory review of party submissions, and was done hastily and with little explanation for its conclusion. “In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow docket decisionmaking,” Kagan wrote.

More in News

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Aurora forecast through the week of March 16

These forecasts are courtesy of the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Geophysical Institute… Continue reading

U.S. Sen. Dan. Sullivan (R-Alaska) walks through a hallway of protesters with his wife, Julie Fate Sullivan, before his annual address to the Alaska Legislature on Thursday, March 20, 2025. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire)
Sullivan generates warmth and heat with energy filled speech to Alaska Legislature

Senator takes barrage of friendly and confrontational questions from lawmakers about Trump’s agenda.

Research biologists pause among the wetlands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain, with the Brooks Range in the background. The Trump administration is taking steps to offer the entire coastal plain for oil and gas leasing, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said on Thursday. (Lisa Hupp/USFWS)
Interior secretary announces plans to advance new Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil leasing

Follow-ups to Trump executive orders will mean leasing across ANWR, wider NPR development.

The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Storis near Tampa, Florida, on Dec. 10, 2024. (U.S. Coast Guard photo)
Storis icebreaker expected to make ceremonial visit to Juneau this summer, officials say

Coast Guard icebreaker set to be homeported locally will still need further upgrades for deployment.

The Columbia state ferry docks at the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal on March 4. (Laurie Craig / For the Juneau Empire)
Alaska Marine Highway’s long-range plan met with skepticism and concerns

Residents decry loss of service, Murkowski says “once-in-a-generation” funding opportunity in peril.

Salmon dries on a traditional rack on the beach in the Seward Peninsula village of Teller on Sept. 2, 2021. Salmon is a dietary staple for Indigenous residents of Western Alaska, and poor runs have created hardship. (Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Bill would change the makeup of the Alaska Board of Fisheries

Would require commercial, sport and subsistence members, along with one representing scientists.

Sara Kveum speaks to the crowd rallying in front of the Alaska State Capitol, alongside Nikki Bass, both members of the Key Coalition of Alaska advocating for disability rights on March 19, 2025 (Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
‘We are done waiting!’ Advocates and supporters of Alaskans with disabilities rally at the Capitol

Participants focus on Medicaid, eliminating waitlists for support services, infant learning programs.

John Boyle, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (center left), sits with staff in the gallery of the Alaska House of Representatives as lawmakers debate the creation of a separate Alaska Department of Agriculture on Wednesday, March 19, 2025. Speaking is Rep. George Rauscher, R-Sutton. (James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska Legislature halts Dunleavy effort to create agriculture department

Legislators cancel executive order but say a bill to create the department is possible later this year.

Most Read