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

A plane flies over the town after taking off from the dirt runway on Sept. 14, 2019, in Kivalina. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Possible Postal Service changes present challenge to Alaska Bypass Mail

Rural communities depend on service for food shipments.

The exterior of the Governor’s House on Wednesday, with Nov. 20, 2024, with decorations in place for the holiday season. (Laurie Craig / Juneau Empire file photo)
Turning Governor’s House into a short-term rental proposed by Alaska lawmaker

Republican House member says intent is fiscal responsibility, not a slight of often-absent GOP governor.

SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium’s Vintage Park Campus on its opening day of Dec. 19, 2023. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire file photo)
SEARHC starts up new online portal for patients

Starting later this month, SEARHC patients will be able to schedule appointments,… Continue reading

Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom (R-Alaska) chats with U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) before her annual address to the Alaska State Legislature on March 18, 2025. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire)
Murkowski embraces many of Trump’s goals, but questions his methods

Senator addresses flood concerns, federal firings, Medicaid worries in annual speech to Legislature.

This rendering depicts Huna Totem Corp.’s proposed new downtown development project. (City and Borough of Juneau)
Aak’w Landing private cruise ship dock advances to full Assembly for possible April vote

Modifications to proposed agreement include ship size limit, Coast Guard’s OK due to icebreaker.

(Michael Penn / Juneau Empire file photo)
Police calls for Sunday, March 16, 2025

This report contains public information from law enforcement and public safety agencies.

A map of Alaska shows the three Social Security Administration field offices in Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks. (Google Maps)
Update: Social Security to cut phone support, forces Alaskans online or to Juneau, Anchorage or Fairbanks

New policy announced Tuesday takes effect March 31; 60,000 rural Alaskans lack broadband.

Rep. Jeremy Bynum, R-Ketchikan, speaks Feb. 21, 2025, on the floor of the Alaska House of Representatives. (James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska legislators ask feds to reinstate program that sent money to rural schools

The Alaska House of Representatives is asking Congress to fix a problem… Continue reading

Most Read