Supreme Court — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

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

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

The Supreme Court’s Unconstitutional Role in Rights of Action Under Bivens vs. Six Unknown Named Narcotics Agents

On June 21, 1971, the Supreme Court held in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Narcotics Agents that an implied right of action existed against federal officers for violation of one’s Fourth Amendment rights. [1] According to the court, the Constitution implied that individuals had a right to sue for monetary damages if they could prove that a federal official, acting under federal orders, subjected them to an unreasonable search or seizure. Bivens actions, then, provide an avenue for victims of constitutional violations to receive monetary redress for their grievances. In the decade following the Bivens decision, the Court expanded the precedent to apply to infringements on the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, including individual’s rights against self-incrimination and cruel and unusual punishment, respectively, by rewarding damages in two other cases: Davis v. Passman (1979) and Carlson v. Green (1980).

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.

Current Events | How A Forthcoming Supreme Court Decision Could Trigger A New Era of Weakened Gun Laws

This past November, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a case challenging a strict New York state gun law. This marks the first time the Court has taken up a major Second Amendment case in more than a decade. After two hours of questioning, a majority of justices seemed poised to strike down the law, which restricts citizens from carrying concealed handguns outside the home unless they prove a heightened or unique need, known as a “proper cause,” to do so. [1] Considering the Court’s recent 6-3 conservative supermajority, the justices will likely rule the New York law unconstitutional. In turn, the New York case could have lasting ramifications, endangering current restrictions on guns in public spaces such as bars, sports stadiums, and subways, and ushering in a new era of weakened gun control laws, increased litigation, and constitutional questions regarding where and when one can carry a gun in public.

The State of Religious Liberty After Bostock, Little Sisters, & Our Lady of Guadalupe

In June 2020, the Supreme Court delivered a victory for LGBTQ+ rights in Bostock v. Clayton County. In this case, the Court ruled that firing an employee for being gay or transgender violates the prohibition on discrimination “because of … sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While many Americans rejoiced over this victory, others were concerned about the ruling’s implications for religious liberty.

Will FosterOctober 4, 2020Supreme Court, First Amendment, Religion, Religious Freedom, LGBTQ+ Rights, Discrimination

Putting Faith in Faithless Electors?

In May, the Supreme Court heard two cases on whether presidential electors can be legally required to follow their state’s popular vote. Colorado Department of State v. Baca and Chiafalo v. Washington concern electors in Colorado and Washington State, respectively, who broke state law by casting their ballots for someone other than 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton, who won the popular vote in both states in the 2016 election. Such electors who are pledged to vote for a certain candidate by state law but vote otherwise are known as “faithless electors.”

Angela YeJune 15, 2020Supreme Court, electoral college, faithless electors

Timbs v. Indiana: A New Precedent on Civil Forfeiture

Timbs reflects the changing dynamics between law enforcement and private citizens, and reveals the challenging issues surrounding drug policy and law enforcement. Timbs v. Indiana holds the potential to create healthier interactions between law enforcement and private citizens.

fall 2019Lorenzo Thomas GarciaJanuary 27, 2020Civil forfeiture, property law, incorporation, Supreme CourtComment

Revisiting Title VII: Supreme Court Hears Arguments on LGBTQ+ Workplace

Workplace protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity are inconsistent through the U.S., and two critical issues are now in front of the Supreme Court. Based on the Court’s past interpretations of Title VII, and on the inherent role of sex in discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender identity, the Supreme Court should find that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sexuality and discrimination based on transgender identities.

fall 2019Angela YeJanuary 20, 2020Supreme Court, Workplace Discrimination, LGBTQ rights, civil rights, Civil Rights Act of 1964Comment

Disparate Impact Reinterpreted: Fair Housing Under Threat

In its original application, disparate impact is a “theory of liability” that prevents the use of “facially neutral employment practices,” or policies without a clear intention to discriminate, that adversely affect a protected employment class such as one based on race, gender, or religion. The recent development is particularly concerning because the disparate impact standard is not only integral in proving cases of employment discrimination, but it is also essential in combatting discrimination in areas ranging from education to housing.

fall 2019David JungJanuary 15, 2020Supreme Court, Housing Discrimination, HUD, civil rights, Civil Rights Act of 1964Comment