The United States Supreme Court's Shadow Docket: Procedure and Implications

81 pagesDespite numerous criticisms of the Supreme Court in recent years, the emergence of the “shadow docket” presents one of the largest existential threats to the Court’s legitimacy and the democratic system writ large. The shadow docket is a term to describe rulings on procedural matters and emergency applications. Through case studies of Tandon v Newsom and Whole Women’s Health v Jackson, this thesis examines the emergence of the shadow docket, how it undermines traditional legal procedures and norms, and the multifaceted implications of this practice. The results indicate that the shadow docket is being used to create new legal interpretations and undermine existing precedent such as Roe v Wade and Employment Division v Smith, all without the Court practices that have legitimized controversial decisions for centuries. The findings of this thesis emphasize the need to increase Court transparency and accountability in order to preserve the system of checks and balances