-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
The Supreme1 Court and 'The Shadow Docket'
The title sounds more like a thriller3 than a legal treatise4. The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court uses stealth rulings to amass5 power and undermine the republic" — and the author, University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck, admits the term "shadow docket" is evocative.
Vladeck's book, written so it can be understood by the interested non-lawyer, focuses on a part of the court's work that until six or seven years was mainly viewed as pretty boring. That, however is no longer true, and today the emergency docket has come to be known as the shadow docket, a term coined in 2015 by University of Chicago law professor William Baude.
Justice Samuel Alito hates the term, and gave an hour-long speech in 2021 at Notre Dame6, suggesting that journalists and politicians have seized on it to wrongly portray7 the court as "sneaky," "sinister," and "dangerous."
Nonetheless the term has stuck.
Professor Vladeck argues that the court has only itself to blame.
"What impelled8 me to write the book is that over the last six years, we've seen the shadow docket become a lot less boring because the Supreme Court, and especially the conservative majority, has been using unsigned and unexplained orders to a degree and in ways which really have no precedent9 in the court's history," he said in an interview with NPR.
What is the shadow docket?
The shadow, or emergency, docket, is the way many cases today, sometimes hugely consequential10 cases, are decided11, without full briefing or oral argument, and without any written opinion.
These cases are brought to the court by a state, or a company, or a person who has lost in the lower courts, often at an early stage, and that loser is now asking the Supreme Court to block the lower court order while the case proceeds through the lower court appeals process, which typically takes many months. Most recently, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order blocking lower court decrees that would have made it far more difficult to obtain mifepristone, the pill used in the majority of abortions13 in the United States today. As is typical in these shadow docket cases, the court issued no written opinion in the case, though Justice Alito, one of the two dissenters15, issued an angry explanation for his disagreement with the majority.
Up until relatively16 recently, these shadow docket actions were quite rare. The statistics tell the story, statistics compiled by Vladeck. During the 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, the federal government, the most frequent litigant17 in the Supreme Court, only asked the justices for emergency relief eight times--or on average once every two years. The two administrations together got what they wanted in only four of the eight cases, and in all but one of them the court spoke18 with one voice, and no dissent14.
But in the Trump19 administration, and with a newly energized20 conservative majority on the court, the picture changed dramatically. In just four years, the Trump Justice Department asked the court for emergency relief an astounding21 41 times, and the court actually granted all or part of those requests in 28 of the cases.
In short, not only did the Trump administration aggressively seek to use the emergency docket, often leapfrogging over appeals courts entirely22, but it succeeded with the tactic23.
'The dirty secret'
Vladeck cites, for example, the challenge to President Trump's controversial diversion of military construction funds to build his border wall. A federal district court judge, after hearing the case, ruled that the diversion was unconstitutional, and barred the administration from using the money for a different use than Congress authorized24. Within weeks the Trump administration went to the Supreme Court with an emergency appeal to block the lower court order, and the justices restored the money diversion by a 5-to-4 vote, with no written opinion for either the majority or dissent. As professor Vladeck explains, these emergency rulings are supposed to be temporary, to allow the cases to play out through the appeals process in the lower courts, and then possibly to return for full consideration by the Supreme Court later.
But "the dirty secret is that later never comes," he says. "By the time the border wall case," or "all kinds of other challenges to Trump policies make their way back to the Supreme Court, at the far end of the normal litigation process, President Biden is in office and those policies have been discontinued, and the cases are thrown out."
That pattern, he says, was repeated over and over again, thus allowing Trump "to carry out policies that lower courts had held to be unlawful because the Supreme Court, through unsigned and unexplained orders" said, in effect, 'Go ahead President Trump, we'll deal with this later.'"
Vladeck's point is not that the Supreme Court was necessarily wrong, but that its unexplained shadow docket rulings today are both "inscrutable, and inconsistent." The patterns that emerge, he maintains, put the court in an "exceptionally unflattering light."
"The more you look at the body of work, the more it looks like the best explanation for when the court is intervening and when it's not, is partisan25 politics and not neutral substantive26 legal principles," he contends.
Vladeck points to a speech Justice Amy Coney Barrett gave in 2021, in which she assured the audience that the current court "is not composed of partisan hacks28" and urged people to "read the opinions." But as Vladeck observes,
"What's remarkable29 about the shadow docket is that so often the court is handing down rulings with massive impacts in which there's no opinion to read."
Vladeck argues that historically, the way the Supreme Court has conceived of its own legitimacy30 and its own moral authority is its ability to provide principled rationales for its decision-making.
"We may not agree with the specific principles the justices are articulating" in major abortion12 or gun rights cases," he says, citing two examples. But at least we have some sense that these decisions are based on legal principles. In contrast, he argues, "The shadow docket has none of that."
Vladeck agrees there are times when the court quite legitimately31 must use the emergency docket to deal with emergency situations--the classic one being a last-minute appeal to stop an execution, or the series of cases involving the Trump travel ban, or the mifepristone cases. But he notes that even conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has sounded the alarm about such frequent use the shadow docket.
For instance, in an Alabama redistricting case where Roberts, no fan of the Voting Rights Act, might ultimately side with the state, he wrote that the lower court had properly ruled on the law as it exists today; he was thus unwilling32 to grant an emergency order overturning the unanimous lower court decision. He instead joined the Supreme Court's three liberals in dissent. In that sense, says Vladeck, Roberts is the "canary in the coal mine."
Vladeck points out that Congress is not without power when it comes to such matters. For the first 200 years of the Supreme Court's existence, Congress played an active role in the shape and size of the court's docket, including how the court would handle emergency cases.
"I think the story here is one where Congress progressively got out of the business of checking the court and the court progressively got out of the business of wanting to be checked," he says.
1 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 transcript | |
n.抄本,誊本,副本,肄业证书 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 thriller | |
n.惊险片,恐怖片 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 treatise | |
n.专著;(专题)论文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 amass | |
vt.积累,积聚 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 dame | |
n.女士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 portray | |
v.描写,描述;画(人物、景象等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 impelled | |
v.推动、推进或敦促某人做某事( impel的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 precedent | |
n.先例,前例;惯例;adj.在前的,在先的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 consequential | |
adj.作为结果的,间接的;重要的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 abortion | |
n.流产,堕胎 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 abortions | |
n.小产( abortion的名词复数 );小产胎儿;(计划)等中止或夭折;败育 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 dissent | |
n./v.不同意,持异议 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 dissenters | |
n.持异议者,持不同意见者( dissenter的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 relatively | |
adv.比较...地,相对地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 litigant | |
n.诉讼当事人;adj.进行诉讼的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 trump | |
n.王牌,法宝;v.打出王牌,吹喇叭 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 energized | |
v.给予…精力,能量( energize的过去式和过去分词 );使通电 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 astounding | |
adj.使人震惊的vt.使震惊,使大吃一惊astound的现在分词) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 tactic | |
n.战略,策略;adj.战术的,有策略的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 authorized | |
a.委任的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 partisan | |
adj.党派性的;游击队的;n.游击队员;党徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 substantive | |
adj.表示实在的;本质的、实质性的;独立的;n.实词,实名词;独立存在的实体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 analyze | |
vt.分析,解析 (=analyse) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 hacks | |
黑客 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 legitimacy | |
n.合法,正当 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 legitimately | |
ad.合法地;正当地,合理地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 unwilling | |
adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|