The February 2016 rulings blocking the Clean Power Plan were unprecedented; in retrospect, they were harbingers of a paradigm shift in the Supreme Court's role.
If Congress can be backed into voting for release of the Epstein files, it can be pushed into setting limits on ICE.
When public opinion is STRONG, Trump knows he has to back down. It's time to call Congress (202 224 3121) and the White House (202 456 1414) about ICE reform. The next 10 days are critical. Read about the 10 Democratic proposals to curb ICE.
I thought Montgomery v. Louisiana was 6-to-3 rather than 5-to-4? Kennedy wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.
Ironic that unexplained orders are intrinsically arbitrary and capricious, exactly the kind of problem that gets administrative rules and regulations tossed in the first place.
I guess Steve assumes we all know he wrote at length (and depth, and clarity) about today's topic in his book The Shadow Docket. Perhaps modesty forbade.
Thank you for this reminder that the behavior and decisions of the Supreme Court that since January 20, 2025 we have found increasingly shocking and even constitutionally questionable if not illegal has origins in the minds, attitudes and biases of Justices themselves that are independent from those of the occupant of the White House. Although presumably it is formally impossible for a Supreme Court ruling to be illegal at the time it is made, since there is no Supremer Court to overturn its decisions, and it can be argued that the word Supreme is itself an absolute adjective, making comparison technically improper. Only a later decision by the Supreme Court can overturn a previous ruling. I recall that some legal commentators have characterized the Shadow Docket as the legal and contemporary equivalent of the curtain of secrecy in the Wizard of Oz. If only the famous quote in that movie, “"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" could be applied to the Shadow Docket. Democracy dies in Darkness (Washington Post, 2017) but now it can also be brazenly attacked in sunlight (Washington Post, 2026).
The reminder of the February 2016 rulings blocking the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is another disturbing sign of the ignorance of some Justices not only as historians (their application of “originalism” and textual analysis) but also of contemporary science and the knowledge we have developed over the last quarter millennium, and hence of the predictably harmful consequences of some of their decisions. If they were intellectually honest, they would admit they have no business reaching decisions about critical matters about which they know very little if anything. How do they propose humanity address the harms it will increasingly be exposed to as a result of human-accelerated climate warming if we do not take steps to reduce one of its causes? Is there no legal principle that if lives are at stake you are entitled to take steps to save them even if they require actions that could or might otherwise be ruled as illegal? Is the fundamental principle of bioethics and medicine, " Above all, do no harm" totally irrelevant for the rule of law?
‘I suspect that the federal government’s hard-to-defend hypocrisy was not lost on the justices’. I suspect you are absolutely correct Steve
If Congress can be backed into voting for release of the Epstein files, it can be pushed into setting limits on ICE.
When public opinion is STRONG, Trump knows he has to back down. It's time to call Congress (202 224 3121) and the White House (202 456 1414) about ICE reform. The next 10 days are critical. Read about the 10 Democratic proposals to curb ICE.
https://kathleenweber.substack.com/p/the-most-important-thing-you-can
I thought Montgomery v. Louisiana was 6-to-3 rather than 5-to-4? Kennedy wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.
Sure enough! Thanks for the catch; fixing now.
Ironic that unexplained orders are intrinsically arbitrary and capricious, exactly the kind of problem that gets administrative rules and regulations tossed in the first place.
I guess Steve assumes we all know he wrote at length (and depth, and clarity) about today's topic in his book The Shadow Docket. Perhaps modesty forbade.
Highly recommended!
I do wonder if there might be some legislative action that could be taken to address this [mis]use of the shadow docket.
Thank you for this reminder that the behavior and decisions of the Supreme Court that since January 20, 2025 we have found increasingly shocking and even constitutionally questionable if not illegal has origins in the minds, attitudes and biases of Justices themselves that are independent from those of the occupant of the White House. Although presumably it is formally impossible for a Supreme Court ruling to be illegal at the time it is made, since there is no Supremer Court to overturn its decisions, and it can be argued that the word Supreme is itself an absolute adjective, making comparison technically improper. Only a later decision by the Supreme Court can overturn a previous ruling. I recall that some legal commentators have characterized the Shadow Docket as the legal and contemporary equivalent of the curtain of secrecy in the Wizard of Oz. If only the famous quote in that movie, “"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" could be applied to the Shadow Docket. Democracy dies in Darkness (Washington Post, 2017) but now it can also be brazenly attacked in sunlight (Washington Post, 2026).
The reminder of the February 2016 rulings blocking the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is another disturbing sign of the ignorance of some Justices not only as historians (their application of “originalism” and textual analysis) but also of contemporary science and the knowledge we have developed over the last quarter millennium, and hence of the predictably harmful consequences of some of their decisions. If they were intellectually honest, they would admit they have no business reaching decisions about critical matters about which they know very little if anything. How do they propose humanity address the harms it will increasingly be exposed to as a result of human-accelerated climate warming if we do not take steps to reduce one of its causes? Is there no legal principle that if lives are at stake you are entitled to take steps to save them even if they require actions that could or might otherwise be ruled as illegal? Is the fundamental principle of bioethics and medicine, " Above all, do no harm" totally irrelevant for the rule of law?