It’s just my “opinion” but our current SCOTUS is not doing the right thing by the citizens of our country by making SO many “shadow docket” rulings, I.e. decisions made secretly with no explanations at all to citizens of this country as to the “why” of the case? 14 out of the last 15 shadow docket decisions have been made this year. I’m including a list. I believe I understand why they are doing this, but just don’t think it’s right to be arbitrarily handing out so much power to another branch of the government.
The “shadow docket” refers to the US Supreme Court’s use of emergency orders and summary decisions, typically outside of its usual schedule and without oral arguments or full explanations. While traditionally used for relatively routine procedural matters, the Court has increasingly used the shadow docket in recent years to address significant and often controversial issues with major policy implications.
Here are 15 notable shadow docket decisions, primarily from the last few years, highlighting the range of issues addressed and the concerns surrounding this method of adjudication:
United States v. Skrmetti (2025): Upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors, allowing similar bans in other states to proceed.
Trump v. CASA Inc. (2025): Significantly curtailed the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions blocking presidential policies by scaling back a hold on a Trump administration policy regarding birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and foreign visitors.
Kennedy v. Braidwood Management Inc. (2025): Upheld a portion of the Affordable Care Act requiring health plans to cover preventive care, rejecting religious objections to coverage for medications that prevent HIV transmission.
Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025): Upheld a Texas law requiring age verification to access online pornography, rejecting First Amendment challenges.
Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025): Sided with parents seeking to opt their children out of public school lessons featuring LGBTQ+-themed books, citing religious freedom concerns.
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County (2025): Narrowed the scope of environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects, limiting consideration to impacts directly tied to the project.
Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (2025): Ruled unanimously that Wisconsin discriminated against a Catholic charity by denying it a tax exemption available to the Catholic Church.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (2025): Blocked Mexico’s lawsuit against US gun manufacturers, ruling Mexico failed to establish a strong enough link between US-made guns and cartel violence.
Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (2025): Made it easier for members of majority groups to prove job discrimination claims by striking down a higher standard of proof previously required in nearly half the nation’s federal circuits.
FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (2025): Ruled unanimously that the FDA properly rejected applications to market flavored e-cigarette liquids, citing public health concerns about youth vaping.
Garland v. VanDerStok (2025): Upheld a Biden administration regulation treating “ghost guns” (untraceable weapons assembled from parts kits) as firearms under the Gun Control Act, requiring background checks, serial numbers, and sales records.
San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (2025): Struck down generic environmental regulations required as part of EPA permits for wastewater discharge, potentially weakening the Clean Water Act.
Glossip v. Oklahoma (2025): Ordered a new trial for death row inmate Richard Glossip due to the prosecution’s withholding of evidence, highlighting broader concerns about the death penalty and prosecutorial conduct.
TikTok Inc. v. Garland (2025): Unanimously upheld a federal law requiring TikTok to be sold or banned in the US due to national security concerns, finding it does not violate free speech rights.
Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021): This decision, in which the Supreme Court declined to block a Texas law banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, was a major signal of the Court’s stance on abortion rights before Roe v. Wade was overturned, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
The increasing use of the shadow docket, particularly for consequential decisions, has drawn criticism regarding the lack of transparency, explanation, and opportunity for full debate that characterize the Court’s regular merits docket. This raises concerns about judicial accountability and the perceived politicization of the Court’s rulings.
Writing for Sanity's Sake 