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

erronis

(21,204 posts)
Fri Sep 5, 2025, 08:37 AM Friday

A Really Well Insulated Attic -- Joyce Vance

https://joycevance.substack.com/p/a-really-well-insulated-attic

“If the entire foundation falls out from under your house, it does no good to have a really well-insulated attic,” the judge said. “It sure would be nice if someone had our backs.” An anonymous federal judge made that comment to NBC News in a remarkable piece that published this morning.

The attic they are referring to is the U.S. Supreme Court. A Court that is increasingly viewed in some corners as having abandoned the role Article III of the Constitution assigns to it, to act as a check and balance on the executive branch. But the concerns the judges expressed were about the process the Supreme Court is using to make decisions. The reporting was not an inquiry into either the substance of the high court’s rulings or the politics behind it all.

It’s all about the shadow docket, a term you’re familiar with if you read Civil Discourse. It’s a slightly snarky term coined by legal academics to refer to the Court’s emergency docket, which is used for time-sensitive issues, like last-minute requests to stay executions in death penalty cases. The Court also hears appeals involving emergency civil relief on this docket. That means that cases where pro-democracy lawyers seek injunctions to block some of the most egregious steps this administration is taking land, with increasing frequency, on the shadow docket, and that’s where they get decided.

. . .

Apparently, it’s frustrating for judges in lower courts as well. After all, they are being called upon to apply the Supreme Court’s decisions. Shadow docket rulings are precedent that lower courts must follow. But how do you apply something when there is no explanation for why it happened? That’s the position the lower courts are in and it’s what led 12 federal judges to take the unprecedented step of speaking anonymously to an NBC reporter about what’s going on at the Supreme Court.

The reporting characterized it like this:

“Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.

And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.”


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

AllaN01Bear

(27,311 posts)
2. a house buil on rock foundation will stand o yes , o yes . . a hoose not build on rock foundation will not stand . oh no
Fri Sep 5, 2025, 10:54 AM
Friday

Six117

(279 posts)
3. Insane
Fri Sep 5, 2025, 10:55 AM
Friday

Not interrogating both the substance and politics of the high court's rulings *at this time* is completely insane.

BurnDoubt

(1,001 posts)
4. The Leo Court...
Fri Sep 5, 2025, 11:33 AM
Friday

I hope McConnell has to sit next to Kraznov it in Hell.
Best Judiciary money can buy.

erronis

(21,204 posts)
6. Makes sense to me. But who be the judge on how well it was explained?
Fri Sep 5, 2025, 04:39 PM
Friday

And Roberts and his fellow travelers aren't really thinking about any long-term need for a supreme court. They're putting themselves out of business on purpose, and will rely on some nice rich people to take care of their personal futures.

returnee

(638 posts)
7. Hmmm?
Fri Sep 5, 2025, 05:00 PM
Friday

Well, there’s explained well, tortured explanation (done on purpose), poorly explained, for just a few examples. Then there’s not at all explained, which is how I understand the shadow docket. The latter is what I’m talking about. The meaning of the ruling is crucial to the ruling. No meaning, no ruling, no precedent.
As was explained in the OP, the shadow docket is generally for emergencies and speed. This does not relieve the court of its duty to explain how the law or principle they’re using to justify their ruling can be elaborated upon at a later, hopefully early date.

erronis

(21,204 posts)
8. Yes, there are variations. And the OP does touch on this a bit. But without arguments before the court
Fri Sep 5, 2025, 05:13 PM
Friday

by the affected parties, then it seems there can't be a supported explanation for the ruling other than "This is what We want."

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A Really Well Insulated A...