The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has taken on a more influential and significant role in legislation and policy making, as seen in the number of pivotal rulings and overturned precedents in recent years. SCOTUS, with its 6-3 ratio of conservative to liberal justices, continues this role by halting cases and decisions brought forth by federal courts with little to no explanation.
Shadow Docket
The Trump Administration has made a litany of unconstitutional and controversial policies, from deporting U.S. citizens without due process to weaponizing executive orders and policy to silence journalists. Lower courts have condemned these actions as being “brazen” and “lawless.” These terms are not thrown around lightly, and are contextualized in a political climate wherein judges have reported more than 400 death threats on the basis of their rulings. Data illustrates that federal courts have ruled 82 times against the Trump Administration. Now, here is the striking trend: Out of the 16 cases sent forth through SCOTUS, they ruled 15 times for the administration.
Recently, a number of cases to SCOTUS have been sent through the shadow docket. The shadow docket is a rushed way of hearing cases, making them exempt to oral arguments, deliberations, and briefings. It was originally created to be used in time-sensitive cases, such as for those facing the death penalty, to avoid the normal months-long appeal process. The intention behind this was to stop defendants and plaintiffs from experiencing “irreparable harm” due to the length of the review process. It’s crystal clear that this policy was meant to protect citizens. More broadly, the shadow docket is indicative of the Supreme Court’s responsibility to interpret the Constitution in a manner that best serves public interest. For this to be a truthful, just, and democratic process, open dialogue and deliberation are needed. This allows plaintiffs and defenders to fully elucidate their arguments and provide SCOTUS with relevant information they can use in making these influential decisions. Explaining their decisions also ensures that SCOTUS is making rationalized, informed decisions, and not just abusing their power.
Illustrating Abuse of Power
The SC’s shadow docket decisions have had a number of grave political consequences, outlined below:
Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. – 6/23/25. SCOTUS affirmed and permitted citizens and undocumented individuals being deported to foreign countries without due process. No explanation was provided for this decision, which means SCOTUS effectively wielded the shadow docket to disintegrate the rights and liberties of millions of citizens and immigrants entitled to fair trial.
Louisiana v. American Rivers – 4/6/22. All nine justices overturned a federal court ruling that blocked environmentally damaging infrastructure projects, which helped fossil fuel using companies further their interests. This decision caused widespread contamination of lakes, rivers, and other major waterways, much at the expense of citizens. No explanation was provided as to why this case was qualified to be on the shadow docket.
Trump v. Wilcox – 5/22/2025. The justices upheld Trump’s firings of Democratic workers from several key executive agencies. This decision empowers President Trump to overrule nearly 90 years of precedent set in Humphreys v. Executive (1935) with little more than a decree, as noted in the dissent to this ruling.
McMahon v. New York – 7/4/25. The Supreme Court stated that they intend and support dismantling the Department of Education and support the mass firings of workers in this department.
The Diminishing Influence of Lower Federal Courts
Lower-level courts have less political power and influence compared to the Supreme Court, but are closer to state and citizen needs. When SCOTUS fails to provide explanations for their decisions, they avoid their constitutional duty of interpreting the law and protecting American values from majority influence. Because SCOTUS is the highest authority in the American legal system, their decisions have more influence in contrast to lower-level courts. When SCOTUS aligns with the decision of lower courts, they uphold and affirm their power. States have to comply with both rulings. When SCOTUS disagrees with a particular decision of a lower court, they override and undermine lower courts. This is the skeleton of the legal system. However, the usage of the shadow docket in particular is consequential to the power of lower-level federal courts. These federal courts heard these cases in a prolonged manner, carefully hearing arguments and issuing explanations for their decisions. It can be argued, then, that these informed and carefully thought-out decisions are in the best interest of the American public. The Supreme Court was exempt from this via the shadow docket and has the power to overrule the decisions of federal courts, as discussed earlier. Without explanation, SC decisions are more liable to be influenced by the conservative views of the majority of justices, as opposed to being influenced by any actual legal document. When the SC (ruling with limited information and explanation) rulings differ from lower courts, American communities suffer, as they are bound by policies that lack constitutional justification and have a lower chance of actually being in the best interest of the public. This leads to violations of civil rights, significant government restructuring, and public health crises, as seen in the examples above. Rather than prioritizing the needs of the American people, the Court exercises their power at the expense of democracy and the American experiment.
Justifications
Trump-appointed justice Amy Coney Barrett defended this increased usage of the shadow docket and decision-making of “profound importance.” Justice Barrett claimed that these emergency rulings are made “sooner and with less information than [the justices] want.” Later, Barrett asserted in this C-SPAN interview that these cases are presented in a rushed manner to the Justices, and writing opinions on these kinds of cases is “complicated” because the court does not fully resolve them. Barrett further argued that any explanation would have a “lock in effect” of an “interim call” becoming permanent. Essentially, my interpretation of what Barrett means by the “lock-in” effect is that providing an explanation for a temporary ruling made in a rushed manner (e.g. the emergency hearing), secures it into precedence despite the hasty nature of the review (precedence deserves a more thorough examination).
Liberal justices have expressed concern regarding these recent rulings and point to the fact that many of the cases on the shadow docket do not warrant the emergency consideration that makes them forgo normal court proceedings. Furthermore, prominent legal scholars have reinforced that the time-sensitive nature of these cases do not warrant a lack of explanation for the rushed decision making.
Overreached Power
This ignorance of basic regulations and disregard of constitutional and democratic responsibility has been steadily increasing. SCOTUS’ overreach of power is seen alongside the executive enacting many significant civil rights violations, such as the aforementioned deportations. This all comes at the expense of the public voice. As lower courts experience diminishing influence, the SC continues to violate basic civil liberties and rights. As a result, millions of Americans have suffered injustice at the hands of a select few, with power to make influential decisions that will continually affect the public for many decades to come.
Featured Image Source: The Verge
