“I’m Greem. I’m a shadow cast from this rock.”
And that was just the beginning.
from Shadow and the Ghost
written by Cat Min
illustrated by Cindy Kay
Levine Querido, 2024
accessed on Hoopla 8/3/25
Shadows are where the ladders and yard equipment live in our garages or basements.
A shadow can be a hint or an indistinct image, as in “shadows of things to come” or “the shadow of her smile.” And a shadow is someone who follows you for presumably nefarious reasons, say a spy.
A shadow can remind us of what once was. “Even after she recovered, she was a shadow of her former self.”
Shadows are the dark places in a painting.
A shadow can be a specter or a ghost, an inescapable threat or influence, or even the general atmosphere, especially one that causes gloom, fear, or doubt, as illustrated in the phrase, “they lived under the shadow of war.”
Shadows are ominous.
In 2015, Chicago law professor Will Baude coined the term shadow docket. While the term is not explicitly derogatory, these court orders on the shadow docket are unsigned and unexplained. Even though, as noted by Baude, they are usually innocuous (up to 99% of the time in 2015), by their nature, they are controversial.
Most of the time, a case is selected for the shadow docket when the court needs to decide whether an appeal in a lower court should be allowed to stand. These cases get very little discussion, briefs are very limited. Decisions are made quickly, in a week or less. They are used when the Court believes “irreparable harm” will be caused if the request for a decision is not made immediately.
And as mentioned already, they are unsigned and unexplained. Also, as already mentioned, they are (or maybe were is more accurate now) very often inconsequential. They are in response to an “emergency application.”
That’s the history.
According to the Brennan Center, since 2017, the Court’s role has been changing. Cases being admitted to the shadow docket have become much more frequent and more substantial. They are more consequential. And can serve as precedential (introducing a precedent).
In testimony before Congress (and included in the same Brennan Center article), law professor Stephen I. Vladeck explained the shadow docket. “Owing to their unpredictable timing, [often late at night], their lack of transparency, and their usual inscrutability, these rulings come both literally and figuratively in the shadows.”
Since 2017, the Court has used the shadow docket to rule on issues related to gerrymandering and environmental regulations. These “emergency motions” often try to suspend or even reverse a lower court’s orders while the case is still in progress. And it touches on the “irreparable harm” clause. Critics argue that a case can be decided even before a litigant has proven that harm is really imminent.
And there is no transparency.
Refer to the Brennan Center’s article for some interesting examples of decisions the Court has recently handed down.
In Merit Cases, the Court will wait until a lower court establishes facts and makes a decision. Then, if they decide to take on the case, they receive full briefs, hold oral arguments, and provide detailed, sometimes very long explanations of their orders.
None of this takes place if a case is part of the shadow docket.
After application is made, a case is chosen using the Court’s four criteria for selection:
You can find a detailed and informed paper here.
Without owning or explaining their decisions, the public is hard-pressed to trust the integrity of the Justices and trust that their work is in the best interest of the public.
Ellena Erskine of CNN quoted Ted Cruz, former solicitor general of Texas, in September 2021. He said, “Shadow docket, that is ominous. Shadows are really bad, like really, really bad.”
I’m not sure that in 2025, he’d agree with his own statement.
I’m reading Allegedly, by Tiffany D. Jackson (Quill Tree Books/HarperCollins, 2017). It’s an emotional thriller, a departure from what I usually read. The main character is a 16-year-old doing time for a crime she may or may not have committed when she was nine. The crime is heinous. The punishment is severe. From a starred review in Booklist, it “…ends with a knife twist that will send readers racing back to the beginning again.” I’m almost finished.
Be curious! (and choose light)
And that was just the beginning.
from Shadow and the Ghost
written by Cat Min
illustrated by Cindy Kay
Levine Querido, 2024
accessed on Hoopla 8/3/25
Shadows are where the ladders and yard equipment live in our garages or basements.
A shadow can be a hint or an indistinct image, as in “shadows of things to come” or “the shadow of her smile.” And a shadow is someone who follows you for presumably nefarious reasons, say a spy.
A shadow can remind us of what once was. “Even after she recovered, she was a shadow of her former self.”
Shadows are the dark places in a painting.
A shadow can be a specter or a ghost, an inescapable threat or influence, or even the general atmosphere, especially one that causes gloom, fear, or doubt, as illustrated in the phrase, “they lived under the shadow of war.”
Shadows are ominous.
In 2015, Chicago law professor Will Baude coined the term shadow docket. While the term is not explicitly derogatory, these court orders on the shadow docket are unsigned and unexplained. Even though, as noted by Baude, they are usually innocuous (up to 99% of the time in 2015), by their nature, they are controversial.
Most of the time, a case is selected for the shadow docket when the court needs to decide whether an appeal in a lower court should be allowed to stand. These cases get very little discussion, briefs are very limited. Decisions are made quickly, in a week or less. They are used when the Court believes “irreparable harm” will be caused if the request for a decision is not made immediately.
And as mentioned already, they are unsigned and unexplained. Also, as already mentioned, they are (or maybe were is more accurate now) very often inconsequential. They are in response to an “emergency application.”
That’s the history.
According to the Brennan Center, since 2017, the Court’s role has been changing. Cases being admitted to the shadow docket have become much more frequent and more substantial. They are more consequential. And can serve as precedential (introducing a precedent).
In testimony before Congress (and included in the same Brennan Center article), law professor Stephen I. Vladeck explained the shadow docket. “Owing to their unpredictable timing, [often late at night], their lack of transparency, and their usual inscrutability, these rulings come both literally and figuratively in the shadows.”
Since 2017, the Court has used the shadow docket to rule on issues related to gerrymandering and environmental regulations. These “emergency motions” often try to suspend or even reverse a lower court’s orders while the case is still in progress. And it touches on the “irreparable harm” clause. Critics argue that a case can be decided even before a litigant has proven that harm is really imminent.
And there is no transparency.
Refer to the Brennan Center’s article for some interesting examples of decisions the Court has recently handed down.
In Merit Cases, the Court will wait until a lower court establishes facts and makes a decision. Then, if they decide to take on the case, they receive full briefs, hold oral arguments, and provide detailed, sometimes very long explanations of their orders.
None of this takes place if a case is part of the shadow docket.
After application is made, a case is chosen using the Court’s four criteria for selection:
- “reasonable probability” that at least four Justices will agree
- a “fair prospect” that a majority of Justices, upon review, will determine the lower decision was erroneous
- irreparable harm will result if not taken on
- in a close case, balance is sought between the applicant, the respondent, and the interests of the general public
You can find a detailed and informed paper here.
Without owning or explaining their decisions, the public is hard-pressed to trust the integrity of the Justices and trust that their work is in the best interest of the public.
Ellena Erskine of CNN quoted Ted Cruz, former solicitor general of Texas, in September 2021. He said, “Shadow docket, that is ominous. Shadows are really bad, like really, really bad.”
I’m not sure that in 2025, he’d agree with his own statement.
I’m reading Allegedly, by Tiffany D. Jackson (Quill Tree Books/HarperCollins, 2017). It’s an emotional thriller, a departure from what I usually read. The main character is a 16-year-old doing time for a crime she may or may not have committed when she was nine. The crime is heinous. The punishment is severe. From a starred review in Booklist, it “…ends with a knife twist that will send readers racing back to the beginning again.” I’m almost finished.
Be curious! (and choose light)
RSS Feed