What They Do in the Shadows

 

The shadow docket provides no rationale for overruling the detailed and persuasive opinions of the district court and the court of appeals. Instead, lower court judges are left to “guess” why the reactionary majority overruled the lower courts.

--Robert Hubbell on Substack 

What Happens When Six Justices on the US Supreme Court Go Slimy?

The Six on the Supreme Court are using their "shadow docket" to pet and enable Trump. It's alarming and fucking infuriating.

The Court has for a very long time had an "emergency docket" for true emergencies, like for example, last-minute appeals from deathrow seeking a stay of execution. The bright lawyer who called it the shadow docket -- a nickname that stuck -- saw the darker implications of unsigned opinions issued on much weightier, Constitutional matters. It's the "shadow docket" because its deeds are shady in the moral and ethical sense.

According to ScotusBlog, in the past two months, the Court has issued a number of important rulings on its shadow docket concerning the legality of actions by President Donald Trump. Virtually all have been 6-3 rulings, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

May 22, in Trump v. Wilcox, the Court overturned a preliminary injunction by a district court that prevented Trump from removing Gwynne Wilcox from serving as a commissioner on the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The law says they can't be fired without “cause,” but there was no claim that standard was met.

June 6, in Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the Court paused the district court’s preliminary injunction blocking Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team members and affiliates from accessing Social Security Administration record systems.

June 23, in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., the Court lifted a district court order that prevented immigrants from being deported to countries not listed on their removal orders. The district court had found that the individuals were not given due process. Without explanation, the Court allowed the deportations to go forward while the case winds its way through the justice system, which could take years. On July 3, the Court reaffirmed this, allowing individuals to be sent to South Sudan even though they had no contact with anyone there.

July 8, in Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, the Court issued a stay of a district court’s preliminary injunction preventing firings of government employees in many federal agencies.

July 14, in McMahon v. New York, the Court lifted a district court’s preliminary injunction against mass firings at the Department of Education. 

July 23, in Trump v. Boyle, the Court overturned a preliminary injunction preventing the firing of three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who were protected from removal except for “cause.” No cause was given.

Sept. 8, last Monday, the Court granted Trump's goon squads at ICE the ability to use racial profiling to detain anyone in America. The Court sez that ICE can rely on factors such as “apparent race or ethnicity,” accent, employment status, or generalized location to detain someone they believe to be a non-citizen. In a rare signed postscript, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that ICE agents can simply rely on their “common sense.”