The Eighth Circuit’s attempt to put Missouri’s 2025 congressional map back into effect will fail. It’s also yet another example of the mischief the Supreme Court’s shadow docket behavior can beget.
You likely know this and were just using shorthand, but flagging that the First Circuit’s decision in DVD affirmed the final grant of vacatur, rather than the previously stayed preliminary injunction.
It’s the very nature of shadows, ephemeral, fleeting, undefined at the margins, that one isn’t quite sure what they are or what they mean. At this point, the SC seems to like its rulings to be like that, allowing them to shift at will, indignantly reprimanding those who cannot divine the meaning of those shadows, or at least the SC’s current meaning of those shadows.
Quesrion. Do federal appeals courts have jurisdiction to conduct trials ? A: No. OK then. Q. Do federal appeals courts have jurisdiction, eg, power and authority, to determine in advance the outcome of a trial court proceeding that involves a trial...in effect, eg, an evidentiary hearing the outcome of which must depend on the hearing and consideration of such evidence ?? Appeals courts can direct dismissal. They can affirm summary judgments or not. Can they also obliged a trial court to enter findings and grant affirmative relied for which the hearing of evidence is a condition precedent ??
I guess y'all know what I think. I wonder if the Chicago 7 or Bobby Seal or Berrigan Brothers cases have anything to say about this ?
I suppose the appeals court could have issued an advisory opinion to the effect that they will affirm an injunction in this case should the trial judge decide to issue one. That's guidance for you.
This one won't but another trial judge just might choose to ignore such an order. Your move. Take away his parking space ?
Reading the tea leaves this tells me Rpublicans are in big trouble in Missouri. They have to know it in order to pull stunts like this that threaten to disrupt the election and hang the results.
Steve, here in Missouri, we seem to have taken a wrong turn down the rabbit hole. Now, as a Mizzou Law grad having spent 3 years yelling "Mizzour-uh" at Faurot Field, I'm not offended when people express a little bit of surprise when I pronounce our state's name - but until now, I've always sort of thought that they would not be surprised when I told them what the legal process in our state is. With apologies to Lewis Carroll, here's my take about the 8th Circuit's [ruling? can I even call it that?] tonight:
“That preliminary injunction is stayed,” said Alice. “Then we’ll call it a permanent injunction!” cried the Mad Hatter.
Meanwhile, the Cheshire Court has vanished, leaving only an unexplained order.
Curiouser and curiouser—and somehow we’re supposed to vote?
Professor’s Vladeck’s exposes of the absurdity of the procedures and inexplicable and unexplained rulings of the Roberts Court and their impact on lower courts have revived my memories of encounters with the absurdity of life expressed by great writers and thinkers. For example, Franz Kafka’s absurdity presents a a worldview where human life is trapped in meaningless, opaque, and illogical systems that defy reason and control. Sounds like the Shadow Docket, nicht wahr? In contrast we may feel that life is absurd and nothing we do matters. Then Albert Camus is our source of wisdom. I recall my teenage and college days, when occasionally I had this disturbing feeling, which would vanish if I saw a young woman whom I found attractive, and hoped the attraction would be mutual. Camus advises that rather than deny life’s absurdity we can find authentic happiness by perpetually scorning our absurd fate, or perhaps for Anglophiles by thinking about the absurdity as a source of inspiration for new Monty Python sketches - ”Noone expects the Supreme Court’s decisions. Our chief weapons are the Shadow Docket, loyalty to a convicted felon, our allies in groups wearing red baseball caps with silly slogans…..”
The Chaos in Missouri (will it go down in history as noteworthy as the Missouri Compromise?) which Professor Vladeck explains can perhaps be presented to Chief (In)Justice Roberts with a metaphor from baseball or another sport he should appreciate. Is it reasonable to change the change the definition or boundaries of a strike zone after the start of a game, or for soccer fans to change the timing and positioning conditions of the offside rule after play has started?
Oy vey. But your analysis gives us hope. Thank you, Steve.
Ir reads as a willful defiance of the Supreme Court by the 8th Cicuit.
Thank you for getting this out so quickly and assuaging my mind that SCOTUS likely won't go along for this. Absolutely INSANE.
Bonkers!
Odd that such chatterboxes as the six arch-conservatives, refrain from *any* sort of explanation when donning their shadow court robes.
You likely know this and were just using shorthand, but flagging that the First Circuit’s decision in DVD affirmed the final grant of vacatur, rather than the previously stayed preliminary injunction.
Could congress make a law outlawing the shadow docket?
It’s the very nature of shadows, ephemeral, fleeting, undefined at the margins, that one isn’t quite sure what they are or what they mean. At this point, the SC seems to like its rulings to be like that, allowing them to shift at will, indignantly reprimanding those who cannot divine the meaning of those shadows, or at least the SC’s current meaning of those shadows.
It’s the only way for them to claim fairness when they rule against the next democrat for doing the same thing
How about a law voiding all cases where Justices had a conflict of interest - retroactively?
Quesrion. Do federal appeals courts have jurisdiction to conduct trials ? A: No. OK then. Q. Do federal appeals courts have jurisdiction, eg, power and authority, to determine in advance the outcome of a trial court proceeding that involves a trial...in effect, eg, an evidentiary hearing the outcome of which must depend on the hearing and consideration of such evidence ?? Appeals courts can direct dismissal. They can affirm summary judgments or not. Can they also obliged a trial court to enter findings and grant affirmative relied for which the hearing of evidence is a condition precedent ??
I guess y'all know what I think. I wonder if the Chicago 7 or Bobby Seal or Berrigan Brothers cases have anything to say about this ?
I suppose the appeals court could have issued an advisory opinion to the effect that they will affirm an injunction in this case should the trial judge decide to issue one. That's guidance for you.
This one won't but another trial judge just might choose to ignore such an order. Your move. Take away his parking space ?
Reading the tea leaves this tells me Rpublicans are in big trouble in Missouri. They have to know it in order to pull stunts like this that threaten to disrupt the election and hang the results.
Were the Eighth Circuit justices auditioning for the Supreme Court?
Yes, and sadly, they see their biggest competition down in the Fifth Circuit and try to exceed them.
But why would the Eighth Circuit do this? Just to poke USSC in the eye??
Wow! Thanks Steve, very entertaining!
excellent update, Steve.
Steve, here in Missouri, we seem to have taken a wrong turn down the rabbit hole. Now, as a Mizzou Law grad having spent 3 years yelling "Mizzour-uh" at Faurot Field, I'm not offended when people express a little bit of surprise when I pronounce our state's name - but until now, I've always sort of thought that they would not be surprised when I told them what the legal process in our state is. With apologies to Lewis Carroll, here's my take about the 8th Circuit's [ruling? can I even call it that?] tonight:
“That preliminary injunction is stayed,” said Alice. “Then we’ll call it a permanent injunction!” cried the Mad Hatter.
Meanwhile, the Cheshire Court has vanished, leaving only an unexplained order.
Curiouser and curiouser—and somehow we’re supposed to vote?
Professor’s Vladeck’s exposes of the absurdity of the procedures and inexplicable and unexplained rulings of the Roberts Court and their impact on lower courts have revived my memories of encounters with the absurdity of life expressed by great writers and thinkers. For example, Franz Kafka’s absurdity presents a a worldview where human life is trapped in meaningless, opaque, and illogical systems that defy reason and control. Sounds like the Shadow Docket, nicht wahr? In contrast we may feel that life is absurd and nothing we do matters. Then Albert Camus is our source of wisdom. I recall my teenage and college days, when occasionally I had this disturbing feeling, which would vanish if I saw a young woman whom I found attractive, and hoped the attraction would be mutual. Camus advises that rather than deny life’s absurdity we can find authentic happiness by perpetually scorning our absurd fate, or perhaps for Anglophiles by thinking about the absurdity as a source of inspiration for new Monty Python sketches - ”Noone expects the Supreme Court’s decisions. Our chief weapons are the Shadow Docket, loyalty to a convicted felon, our allies in groups wearing red baseball caps with silly slogans…..”
The Chaos in Missouri (will it go down in history as noteworthy as the Missouri Compromise?) which Professor Vladeck explains can perhaps be presented to Chief (In)Justice Roberts with a metaphor from baseball or another sport he should appreciate. Is it reasonable to change the change the definition or boundaries of a strike zone after the start of a game, or for soccer fans to change the timing and positioning conditions of the offside rule after play has started?
A truly brilliant post