Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

B.See

(7,781 posts)
Wed Dec 17, 2025, 02:05 AM Dec 17

The Supreme Court's Shadowy Plan to Subvert Democracy

The Supreme Court’s Shadowy Plan to Subvert Democracy - The Nation In making frequent, ill use of the “shadow docket,” the high court is not just handing Trump policy victories. It’s upending the rule of law.


In the United States, Donald Trump’s regime has found its willing wingman in Chief Justice John Roberts and the other Republicans on the Supreme Court. The Roberts court is game to do everything Trump wants it to do and, as an added bonus, to do most of it in secret, under cover of what’s known as the shadow docket.

The “shadow docket” is the colloquial term for the court’s emergency docket—those cases for which the court, at the request of a litigant, issues expedited rulings and does so without a full briefing from the lawyers involved or a full hearing on the issue at hand. The emergency docket is supposed to be used for, well, emergencies: cases that require an immediate response to avert irrevocable harm. The classic emergency-docket case is a death-penalty appeal. A person set to be executed in the morning cannot wait for the court to consider their appeal in a year and a half.

Technically, shadow-docket rulings are supposed to be temporary, pending a full hearing by the court on the merits of the case. In reality, many are final, because the harm the Trump administration does in the interim cannot be easily undone. If the court temporarily approves Trump’s right to fire you or cut off your food or bomb your boat, it’s hard to undo those actions a year later, when the court considers the merits of your unemployed, starving, charred case.

Many court watchers have sounded the alarm over the Supreme Court’s use of the shadow docket in recent years—notably, since 2017, when Trump arrived at the White House. Until then, it was exceedingly rare for a president to make an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. During their respective terms (for a total of 16 years), George W. Bush and Barack Obama each made only eight emergency appeals. Trump, by contrast, made 41 in his first term. Joe Biden made 19 over his four years in office, a number that the second Trump administration matched in just its first 20 weeks. Trump uses and abuses this process so much that some people now call it the “Trump docket.” Anytime he gets a lower-court ruling he doesn’t like, he runs to the Supreme Court asking for emergency relief. And he usually gets it: As of this writing, Trump has received decisions in 23 cases on the shadow docket. He’s won 20 of them.


3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Botany

(76,404 posts)
1. The 14th amendment article 3 explicitly spelled out it was illegal for Trump to run again but the SCOTUS..
Wed Dec 17, 2025, 08:16 AM
Dec 17

just blew that off. Trump violated those rulings by failing to uphold his oath to the
Constitution and by leading an insurrection against the government of the United States
of America.

B.See

(7,781 posts)
2. That's because tRump couldn't give a flying about the Constitution and for that matter,
Wed Dec 17, 2025, 11:25 PM
Dec 17

neither do his MAGA henchmen/accomplices on the so-called "supreme" court. Except to the extent that they can convolute, twist, and pervert it to suit their anti-Democracy far REICH agenda.

Sympthsical

(10,854 posts)
3. It was a 9-0 ruling in the case
Wed Dec 17, 2025, 11:52 PM
Dec 17

I doubt Kagan, Sotomayor, or Jackson are MAGA henchmen upholding a right-wing agenda.

It was a dumb gambit, people said so at the time, but a few politicians and law types who enjoy social media (and regular media) attention gassed everyone up about it.

In their concurrence, the three liberal justices wrote, "It would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Supreme Court's Shado...