Shadow
Dockets
By
Marissel Descalzo
Thank
you David for inviting me to serve as a guest blogger. I’m very excited
for this opportunity to contribute to the community you’ve created.
If you’ve been following the news over the past few days, you’ve probably heard about the Supreme Court’s cryptic “shadow docket.” The “shadow docket” is a phrase coined by William Baude, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, to describe the use of emergency orders and summary decisions by the Supreme Court without full briefing and oral argument.
Shadow
docket cases typically arise from emergency requests to stop a lower court’s
decision where the applicant has to show “irreparable harm” absent immediate
intervention. The Supreme Court has historically used the shadow docket to
decide unambiguous cases (e.g., federal death penalty cases).
Recently,
there has been a recent shift in the type and number of cases being decided on
the shadow docket. In the past 18 months, the Supreme Court has issued shadow
docket decisions on issues involving the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions on
places of worship, and changes to voting rules during the pandemic.
In
the last week of August alone, the court decided three highly politically
charged issues – the Biden administration’s eviction moratorium, the Trump
administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, and the new Texas abortion law –
all on the shadow docket. Arguably, the most controversial decision related to
the Texas abortion law. The decision was
widely reported and criticized, even David blogged about it and was reported throughout mainstream media, including
was the Texas abortion law HERE.
Critics
claim that the “right” is using the shadow docket to push an agenda.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law,
strongly supports this view. He’s been tracking the shadow docket and
reports that 41 requests for emergency relief were submitted by the Trump
administration, while only eight were submitted by the Obama and Bush
administrations combined. More about Professor Vladeck’s opinions can be
found HERE.
Whatever
the motivation, the use of the shadow docket is certainly troubling and
downright dangerous. Significant issues that affect our legal system and vulnerable
populations are being decided without the benefit of briefing, oral argument,
and public input through amicus briefing. Here’s to hoping that these
matters shift back into the light and out of the shadows!
5 comments:
***All*** of the orders on the "shadow docket" that you cite had briefing, all of it publicly available. The parties are claiming the need for emergency action, so the fact that the courts quickly decide emergency requests for TROs/injunctions and stays of the same is not troubling in the slightest. In fact, the refusal to consider emergency requests would necessarily deprive one party of the chance to avoid irreparable injury if no action is immediately taken.
This is "downright dangerous"? Please. You dont seem to be upset of all the TROs / injunctions on trump...it seems your quarrel is simply that not all of the orders on the shadow docket come down as you prefer.
Yep. Pro-choice litigants filing emergency requests is part of a right-wing conspiracy. Got it.
There's also an 11th circuit shadow docket dealing with prisoner filings in second habeas cases.
Granting or denying a temporary stay" doesn't decide anything on the merits.
Now dipshit Breyer tells NPR that the decision not to block the Texas law was "very, very, very wrong" but also that the constitutionality of the law shouldn't be decided on an emergency basis. Make up your mind, clown.
Post a Comment