Constitution — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

The Shadow Docket's Shadowy History and an Argument for its Alteration

Whether it was a dispute over a Texas abortion law in 2022 or a fight over federal research grants in 2025, shadow dockets have been heavily utilized recently to make a variety of decisions. The shadow docket, also known as the emergency docket, refers to a different pathway cases may take when entering the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Upon appeal to the highest court, cases may enter either the merits docket, where most landmark cases are decided, or the shadow docket, and progress through the court rapidly. When an appealing party files a petition for a writ of certiorari to SCOTUS, there are two options, to petition the Court and be placed on the list of merit docket cases for the regular season while awaiting approval, or petition for the shadow docket with an emphasis on urgency.

Since the inception of SCOTUS, the Court has utilized shadow dockets to make decisions without the detailed explanations and full hearings that are standard on the merits docket, sometimes even releasing “midnight” decisions. Without proper hearings that are typical of cases on the merits docket. Such practices create an incredible sense of mystery around shadow docket decisions and the reasoning behind their conclusions. For that reason, information and research into this topic is sparse and often contradictary, which only works to further obscure the system. This article will cover the foundational issue with shadow dockets and argue against the current use of them within the United States Federal Court System. As presently employed, the use of shadow dockets by the Supreme Court is unconstitutional due to its inability to fulfill due process, lack of transparency, issues it creates with the separation of powers, and issues with effective application; demonstrating the urgent need for reform.

Isabel LuDecember 6, 2025shadow docket, merit docket, Supreme Court, due process, transparency, Constitution

Are State Laws Allowed to Restrict Abortion? An Analysis of the Legality of Abortion

Abortion has remained a highly contested legal controversy ever since the revolutionary Roe v. Wade ruling that upheld the constitutional right to abortion until viability—when the fetus can survive outside the uterus—due to the compelling government interest in the woman’s life and the right to liberty and privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In recent years, however, individual states have increasingly restricted this right. In particular, a Mississippi law termed the Gestational Age Act “prohibits abortions after 15 weeks, except for… medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality,” thereby significantly restricting a woman’s legal access to abortion and penalizing abortion providers. [1] Subsequently, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this legislation has been appealed to the Supreme Court after the petition for certiorari—an appeal to the Supreme Court to review a case given the prior court’s improper decision—was granted, even as both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal struck it down as unconstitutional. [2] Overturning the right to abortion through Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization would contradict legal precedent, for further restricting the right to abortion infringes on the right of bodily integrity, which largely prevents state involvement in personal medical decisions.

Andrea RuizJune 3, 2022Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Union Pacific Railway Company v. Botsford, Griswold v. Connecticut, Brown v. Board, abortion, Women’s Rights, Supreme Court, 2022, legal precedent, right to privacy, bodily autonomy, Constitution, Amendments, restricting rights