The shadow docket fails again

Overview of pending and decided cases before the Supreme Court and offers critical analysis of the court's recent actions, particularly regarding emergency or "shadow" docket decisions.

1. Pending Cases:

• Several prominent cases for the October term 2025 are pending, including:

• Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (Tariffs)

• Trump v. Slaughter (Independent Agencies)

• Louisiana v. Callais (Voting Rights Act)

• West Virginia v. B. P. J. (Transgender Athletes)

• National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Campaign Finance)

2. Decided Cases:

• Recent cases that have been resolved include:

• Rollins v. Rhode Island State Council of Churches (decided)

• Noem v. National TPS Alliance (decided)

• Trump v. Orr (decided)

• Trump v. Cook (pending)

• Noem v. Perdomo (decided)

3. Critical Analysis of Shadow Docket:

• Erwin Chemerinsky critiques the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket, highlighting its failure to adhere to standard legal principles when issuing stays against preliminary injunctions.

• The case Trump v. Orr serves as a primary example where the court stayed a lower court's decision that blocked a policy requiring passports to display a person's sex at birth, reflecting a broader critique of the court's approach.

4. Concerns with Court Rulings:

• Chemerinsky points out the lack of transparency in the court's decisions, noting the absence of opinions that explain the rationale behind significant rulings affecting individuals, particularly marginalized groups like transgender people.

• The district court found that an updated passport policy that reflects a person's gender identity helps avoid discrimination and violence against transgender individuals.

5. Flaws in Judicial Reasoning:

• The court's majority failed to follow well-established legal standards for stays, such as requiring the government to show strong evidence of its likelihood to succeed in the case.

• Critics argue that the majority's reasoning inadequately considered the real harms faced by transgender individuals and ignored precedents about balancing interests.

6. Implications for Transgender Rights:

• The Trump administration's Executive Order, which favored a binary understanding of gender, faced legal challenges. Despite this, the Supreme Court decided to allow the administration's policy to proceed, raising concerns over potential discrimination against transgender and nonbinary individuals.

The Supreme Court's recent actions, particularly concerning emergency rulings, have drawn sharp criticism for their lack of adherence to legal principles and failure to prioritize the rights and safety of marginalized groups. The ongoing debate over these decisions highlights the importance of transparency and accountability within the court’s operations, especially as it impacts real people's lives and freedoms. 

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/the-shadow-docket-fails-again/