- For the first time in modern history, the Supreme Court's 'shadow docket' decisions (63 orders) outnumbered its traditional merits docket decisions (56 orders) in the term ending October 2025.
- Shadow docket cases are emergency rulings made with limited briefings, no oral arguments, and few signed opinions, often lacking explanations or legal precedent, which has increased under Chief Justice John Roberts.
- The Supreme Court has frequently used the shadow docket to support Trump administration policies, such as allowing immigration detentions and limiting nationwide injunctions, raising concerns about political bias and judicial transparency.
- Emergency applications referred for a full court vote have risen sharply, with the Trump administration filing 32 petitions in 2025 alone, compared to 8 total for the Obama and Bush administrations over 16 years.
- Controversial shadow docket decisions include upholding Texas's abortion law (SB 8) and allowing Louisiana to redraw electoral maps, impacting abortion rights and election districting without detailed justifications.
- Justices like Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have criticized the shadow docket for being unreasoned and undermining public faith in the judiciary, while Samuel Alito argues the court isn't to blame for the rise in such cases.
- Analysis shows only 17% of shadow docket votes have public records, and the court's increased secrecy has led to legislative efforts, like those by Rep. Jamie Raskin, to improve transparency.
- The shadow docket's growth has disrupted lower courts, contradicted legal precedents, and empowered executive authority, with scholars warning it risks turning the Supreme Court into a 'rubber stamp' for political agendas.