Supreme Court’s liberals see dash of progress on emergency appeals, or ‘shadow docket’

Liberal justices on the Supreme Court say they are observing incremental progress in making the court's rapid, emergency rulings more transparent. The practice of resolving urgent appeals without full briefing or oral argument — frequently referred to as the 'shadow docket' — has long drawn criticism for its opacity. Recently, however, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson noted an increase in colleagues issuing written explanations for such fast-track decisions.

The comments came during separate appearances before judges and law students, where both justices welcomed the trend of more publicly articulated reasoning for emergency orders. They framed these developments as positive steps toward greater clarity about how the court resolves high-stakes matters on an accelerated timetable.

Their remarks also came against a backdrop of a large number of emergency appeals originating from the Trump administration. That surge has placed renewed focus on the limits and procedures of the court's emergency docket and on how the justices balance the need for speed with the public's interest in understanding the court's rationale.

While Kagan and Jackson characterized the increased issuance of explanatory opinions as progress, they also implicitly acknowledged the persistence of broader concerns about the shadow docket's role in the Court's work. The trend they highlighted suggests a partial institutional response to calls for more transparency in decisions that can have significant legal and policy consequences.