The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Welcome to the "Interim Docket"
Justice Kavanaugh on what to call the "shadow docket" now that it is no longer in the shadows.
Speaking to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's Judicial Conference, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that the "interim docket" is a better label for the Supreme Court's docket of requests for interim orders and emergency relief than the "shadow docket."
From a Bloomberg report:
"I think the term 'interim docket' best captures it," Kavanaugh told attendees at the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's conference in Memphis on Thursday, after he was asked to "settle" the dispute over what to call the justices' oft-criticized practice of issuing brief orders in pending cases without explanation.
Though the docket has also been called the "emergency docket," for its handling of emergency requests for relief — or the "shadow docket" by critics who see it as opaque —Kavanaugh noted that not all of these requests the justices field are emergencies.
"It's not real catchy, so I'm not sure it'll bloom, but that's the term" Kavanaugh said of his preferred label, which he'd also invoked in July at the Eighth Circuit's conference in Kansas City.
The "shadow docket" label was first suggested by Will Baude because the Court's non-merits orders about pending cases, often in response to petitions for emergency or extraordinary relief, did not receive much attention. Such orders, and their effects, were in the shadows, and Baude thought they needed more attention.
The Supreme Court's handling of requests for interim and other relief no longer occurs within the shadows. To the contrary, such orders receive extensive coverage and commentary. Thus the "shadow docket" is no longer apt, and the "interim docket" (or, perhaps, the "interim orders docket") definitely makes more sense.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Yes, I like "interim" docket. But such an updated descriptor does not serve the interests of those who think in terms of Trump or Obama judges. Because every ruling that goes against my preferences is obviously partisan hackery.
Because every ruling that goes against my preferences is obviously partisan hackery.
It is easy to jump to a conclusion that the ruling is partisan hackery when they don't explain the ruling.
Yet, even when they do explain themselves, people claim they’re just partisan hacks. Weird how they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t, while the people who damn them insist they themselves aren’t partisan hacks.
What "people" claim that? What SCOTUS decisions are you talking about?
If a SCOTUS decision was that poorly constructed and argued, it would deserve ridicule.
A written opinion from the Justices isn't proof against being called a partisan hack, and I never said it was. I just said that it was really easy to call them hacks if they don't say anything at all, since people that believe that they can read minds would jump at the chance they were given.
If they do write an opinion, then the question of whether they were being partisan hacks can be based on what they wrote, rather than ESP.
Issuing a full opinion is no bar to partisan hackery by SCOTUS, as illustrated by the following examples:
Each is cut from whole judicial cloth.
Thank you for proving my point.
Full opinion after oral argument: Hacks
Order with opinion: Hacks
Order without opinion: Hacks
So if they’re damned no matter what, then there’s no point in always providing reasoning behind their decision.
Your point is that no one can call a conservative justice biased without it being obvious that they were the one that was biased.
Replying to you meant that we were damned no matter what, so we wasted our time providing any reasoning.
I say that it should continue to be called the Shadow Docket until every decision comes with a real and thorough majority opinion justifying the outcome.
Edit: The complaint I have had over these orders is not that they don't get enough attention. It is that they are too often highly consequential decisions with insufficient reasoning given (or none at all) that explains and justifies the order.
Exactly right. The shadow docket it should stay, until the reasoning for the decision is thorough, forthright, and public.
Or at least interim level reasoning, not reasonless or shadow reasoning that requires some sort of divine interpretation by the inferior courts. Thorough reasoning may be too much to ask, although interlocutory appeals usually have it.
Agreed. The existence of this docket of cases decided peremptorily without explanation is inconsistent with the rule of law, whatever you call it. If cases involve important legal issues, they should be expedited and decided within weeks, not months. (That might involve the appellate courts working a little harder than they do, which would do them no harm.) If the issues are not that important, lower court decisions (which generally give some explanation) should stand. An exception might be made for cases where the resolution would involve irreparable harm to individual life or private property (e.g., executions), but on most issues, the regular appeals process should be respected.
I have long been a partisan of "interim relief docket." I guess I will have to be 90% satisfied with "interim docket."
How about "The Straighten Out the Idiot District Court Judges Docket"?
Just a reminder. To get to the Supreme Court, it (almost always) has to go through the CoA.
So what you're really saying is "the district courts, and the appellate courts, and the other supreme court justices."
And while this is obviously too subtle a point for you to grasp, the issue that lower courts are having is NOT obeying precedent. It's that they ARE obeying the precedent, and then the Supreme Court (some members) are like, "Naw, don't worry about what we told you to do. This is different. For reasons. Reasons we can't say, but reasons."
It's a procedural issue. If you want to "straighten out" the lower courts that are actually trying to follow the law, then you need to tell them what the law is. It's kind of how the system has worked until now.
Hot take docket, as distinguished from the overly verbose docket.
I think a better approach would be to call it the "Applications Docket", since the cases originate in the court by means of an application for something as opposed to a petition for writ of certiorari. Cases on the Applications Docket are referenced by their application number as opposed to a docket number.
Trump v. Slaughter is listed on the Court's website as being docketed on 9.4.25. The entry for that date is "Application (25A264) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice." The case number is No. 25A264.
Centerline Logistics Corp v. Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific is listed as being docketed on 6.24.25. The entry for that date is "Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due by July 28, 2005)." The case number is No. 24-1320.
So, you have cases that originate in the Court by means of an Application, and these cases are tracked by the application number. Additionally, you have cases that originate by means of a petition for writ of cert, and these cases are tracked by the traditional docket number method
Now, most of the cases that originate by application are requests to extend time to file a petition for writ of cert. I'm not sure those qualify as interim relief or emergencies, nor is the public probably all that interested in them. So, you would start with a reference to the Applications Docket and then narrow down the category of cases being examined to those seeking interim/emergency relief.
"The Supreme Court's handling of requests for interim and other relief no longer occurs within the shadows."
The old line is "only the shadow knows."
The Supreme Court is still acting "in the shadows."
Just today, for instance, the last summer order list has a reference to Justice Thomas not taking part in a rehearing denial. We aren't told why. Liberal justices cite a reason in such cases.
And, more broadly (not that I think it's necessary here), we aren't told why the case wasn't taken for rehearing.
Regularly, including when life and death are involved, the reasons for their actions are thinly explained, if at all. I'm more concerned with the lack of transparency in some of those cases.
The fact that the process is getting more attention is a good thing. But it is still significantly in the shadows.
There is still a need for, to cite Baude's 2015 article, more "transparency."
It's just the motion calendar. Every appellate court has one.
Whatever it is, especially on the Supreme Court level, it involves some significant things & there should be more transparency.
Just call it the Donnie Express Lane.
Clarence can hand him his hamberder and fries with it, giving Don a little thrill up his rotting leg like that is what lands you the good gigs now.
People use the phrase "shadow docket" with some variations on what it encompasses. The broadest definition is "a decision from SCOTUS, not in the form of an opinion issued after oral argument". Other terms like "interim docket" or "application docket" are perhaps more specific.
For example, depending on who you ask, shadow docket may or may not include...
- Extension of time
- Denial of certiorari, especially if noteworthy
- Grant of certiorari, rehearing, or reargument
- GVR (in light of new caselaw, Munsingwear, etc)
- GVR per curiam with no oral argument
- Cases on application docket that are issued after oral argument (NFIB v. OSHA, Ohio v. EPA, Trump v. CASA)
I personally prefer 'rocket docket.'