Shadow docket

rdf:langString Shadow docket

rdf:langString March 2022

rdf:langString Did they rule in favor or against?

rdf:langString Harvard Law Review

rdf:langString Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.

rdf:langString New York University Journal of Law & Liberty

rdf:langString Outside of the merits cases, the Court issued a number of noteworthy rulings which merit more scrutiny than they have gotten. In important cases, it granted stays and injunctions that were both debatable and mysterious. The Court has not explained their legal basis and it is not even clear to what extent individual Justices agree with those decisions.... As the orders list comes to new prominence, understanding the Court requires us to understand its non-merits work – its shadow docket.

rdf:langString Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.

rdf:langString By waiting for most cases to go through multiple layers of review by lower courts... the Court gives itself the benefit of multiple rounds of briefing and argument... such a shift gives at least the appearance that the Court is showing favoritism not only for the federal government as a party, but for a specific political party when it's in control of the federal government.

rdf:langString "Foreword: The Supreme Court's Shadow Docket"

rdf:langString "The Solicitor General and the Shadow Docket"

rdf:langString The shadow docket is the use of emergency orders and summary decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States without oral argument. The term was coined in 2015 by University of Chicago Law professor William Baude. The shadow docket is a break from ordinary procedure. Such cases receive very limited briefings and are typically decided a week or less after an application is filed. The process generally results in short, unsigned rulings. On the other hand, merits cases take months, include oral argument, and result in lengthy opinions detailing the reasoning of the majority and concurring and dissenting justices, if any. It is used when the Court believes an applicant will suffer "irreparable harm" if its request is not immediately granted. Historically, the shadow docket was rarely used for rulings of serious legal or political significance. However, since 2017, it has been increasingly utilized for consequential rulings, especially for requests by the Department of Justice for emergency stays of lower-court rulings. The practice has been criticized for various reasons, including for bias, lack of transparency, and lack of accountability.