In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to cancel $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress. The ruling, seemingly based on a “pocket rescission” strategy, granted Trump the ability to withhold funds until they expired, effectively giving him a line-item veto. This decision, reached through the shadow docket, shifts power from the legislative to the executive branch. The Court’s justification focused on the president’s authority over foreign affairs outweighing Congress’ spending control, a move that could lead to a president impounding any funds they dislike, undermining the separation of powers.
Read More
In the past few months, the Supreme Court, heavily influenced by Trump’s appointments, has issued a series of rulings, largely through the “shadow docket,” that have greatly benefited the former president, including granting him 18 straight victories. These decisions have allowed Trump to pursue his agenda and potentially causing immense suffering to millions. Critics, including prominent legal scholars, argue that Chief Justice John Roberts is overseeing the undermining of the rule of law. The current actions have led many, including legal scholars, to fear for the future of the court.
Read More
Justice Brett Kavanaugh recently defended the Supreme Court’s practice of issuing rulings favoring Donald Trump without explanations, arguing the shadow docket allows for temporary relief while cases are fully litigated. He asserted that providing detailed opinions in these early stages could lead to incorrect legal positions. However, critics like Justice Elena Kagan argue these silent decisions are a mistake, as courts should explain their reasoning. Kavanaugh’s argument assumes the Court must quickly address every Trump request, a practice that deviates from historical precedent.
Read More
The Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing the Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive Social Security Administration data, despite dissent from the Court’s Democratic justices. This decision, though perhaps predictable given precedent regarding executive branch data management, highlights the Court’s increasing use of the shadow docket to expedite cases brought by the Trump administration. Justice Jackson’s dissent criticizes the Court’s apparent abandonment of the “irreparable harm” requirement for granting emergency relief, particularly when compared to its treatment of similar requests from the Biden administration. This disparity suggests a potential double standard in the application of shadow docket rules based on the political affiliation of the involved administration.
Read More
Justice Jackson issued a scathing dissent against the Supreme Court’s decision to utilize the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants. The ruling, made without oral arguments or briefs via the “shadow docket,” allows the deportation of migrants to a notoriously harsh prison based on unsubstantiated claims of gang affiliation. Jackson argues this sets a dangerous precedent, echoing the flawed Korematsu decision, and criticizes the lack of transparency and deliberation in the court’s emergency rulings. She contends the Court’s hasty decision, lacking proper review, demonstrates a troubling pattern of disregarding due process.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker