Steve Vladeck, a law professor and expert on federal courts, dives into the controversial 'Shadow Docket' of the Supreme Court. He discusses how this practice allows significant rulings without transparency, impacting public policies like abortion and voting rights. Vladeck critiques the court's recent rulings and their erosion of rights, advocating for reforms to enhance judicial accountability while preserving legitimacy. The conversation also touches on the complications of court packing and the need for public engagement to restore trust in judicial processes.
The term 'shadow docket' highlights how the Supreme Court issues significant decisions without public scrutiny, raising legitimacy concerns.
Recent rulings, such as the blocking of the OSHA mandate and Texas's abortion law, illustrate the profound impact of the shadow docket.
The increased use of the shadow docket correlates with a more conservative court composition, prompting discussions on judicial accountability and reform.
Deep dives
Understanding the Shadow Docket
The shadow docket refers to the Supreme Court's use of unsigned and unexplained orders to make decisions without the extensive public discourse that typically accompanies its major rulings. Coined by a Chicago law professor, this term highlights the court’s activities that fall outside its regular merit docket, where only a handful of cases receive comprehensive discussions. By operating in this manner, the Supreme Court has been able to issue significant rulings that can drastically affect policy without occasion for public scrutiny or debate, thus raising concerns about legitimacy and transparency. The focus of the conversation is not only to define the shadow docket but to stress its implications for the court’s power dynamics and institutional behavior.
Impact of Recent Supreme Court Decisions
Recent cases, such as blocking the OSHA vaccination mandate during the COVID pandemic and allowing Texas's restrictive abortion law to go into effect, illustrate the profound effects of decisions made via the shadow docket. These rulings exemplify how the court can have direct and far-reaching consequences on public policy and individual rights without providing clear legal reasoning or accountability. Such practices have led to a growing concern about the court's unchecked authority, as decisions that traditionally would be subject to scrutiny are now made behind closed doors, almost in secret. The dialogue examines the results of these rulings and questions the court's responsibility to provide justifications for its actions.
Shifts in Court Dynamics
The current political landscape and the appointment of new justices have contributed significantly to the increased use of the shadow docket. A notable spike began during the Trump administration, which frequently sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, leading to a rise in shadow docket orders. Following the retirement of Justice Kennedy and the confirmation of Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, the Supreme Court’s composition shifted towards a more conservative makeup, allowing for new levels of judicial intervention using the shadow docket. This transformation raises questions about the balance of power and whether the court is becoming more politically aligned rather than adhering to its traditional judicial role.
Legitimacy Concerns and Accountability
The legitimacy of the Supreme Court is fundamentally tied to its ability to provide sound reasoning and accountability for its decisions, especially when they deviate from established precedents. When reviewing contentious rulings like Dobbs, concerns emerge that lack of thorough explanations could lead the public to perceive judgments as politically motivated rather than principled. This deterioration in perceived institutional legitimacy could have long-lasting impacts on public trust in the judicial system, prompting calls for reforms that ensure clearer communication from the court. Addressing these accountability issues may require not just public discourse but tangible legislative actions that rejuvenate the relationship between the court and the political branches.
Potential Paths for Reform
To counter the perception of a problematic shadow docket, discussions around reform have gained traction, focusing on legislative actions that could reaffirm the court’s accountability. Suggestions include reviving mandatory appellate jurisdiction, which would compel the court to hear more significant cases rather than relying solely on the shadow docket for emergency applications. By strengthening congressional oversight and promoting healthier interbranch dynamics, there is potential for creating a more balanced judicial environment. Beyond reforms targeting the shadow docket, fostering open dialogue about the court’s institutional role can serve as a foundation for positive change.
Today's guest, or should I say last year's guest, is Steve Vladeck! He holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law, and is a nationally recognized expert on the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice. Last year, he released the New York Times bestselling book, "The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic." We spoke about the book and about the state of our horrible Supreme Court. Steve will be appearing on Opening Arguments soon for a sequel to this conversation!
Are you an expert in something and want to be on the show? Apply here!
Please please pretty please support the show on patreon! You get ad free episodes, early episodes, and other bonus content
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
