Posts tagged due process
The Shadow Docket's Shadowy History and an Argument for its Alternation
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.

Read More
Isabel Lushadow docket, merit docket, Supreme Court, due process, transparency, Constitution
Consequences of Plea Bargaining: In Consideration of the Rights of the Accused
Consequences of Plea Bargaining: In Consideration of the Rights of the Accused

As Americans currently look to reform the nation’s criminal justice system, with its high incarceration rates and immense racial disparities, plea bargaining is an important consideration. In a plea bargain, also known as a plea deal, the defendant agrees to plead guilty or “no contest,” in exchange for the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offense, or recommend to the judge a specific sentence that is acceptable to the defense. In turn, this allows the defendant to receive a reduced sentence. [1] A plea bargain is a facet of the American criminal justice system that initially became commonplace in the 1920s in order to expedite the trial court process. The prevalence of plea bargaining is constantly being reexamined as the United States reconciles constitutional principles and legal precedent with historic prejudices in its criminal justice system.

Read More
Mariah Johnsonplea bargain, criminal justice, Fourteenth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, due process
Is Death a Constitutional Right?
Is Death a Constitutional Right?

For decades, physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and the right to die have been at the center of numerous legal battles. The “right to die” covers more than just “pulling the plug” on life-sustaining treatment. It also includes suicide, which is done without the assistance of a physician, as well as other practices that are done with the guidance of a physician. Such practices include passive euthanasia, assisted dying, active euthanasia, and most recently, physician-assisted suicide. Although the legality of PAS largely depends on the attitude of the respective state government, one could argue that the banning of physician-assisted suicide violates the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment because the choice to end one’s life during unceasing pain—especially when one’s death is imminent— should be included in one’s right to life. Furthermore, a court’s refusal to recognize the right to die allows the actions of PAS-administering doctors to fall under “affirmative aid in dying,” which exposes doctors to prosecution for murder.

Read More
Mariah Johnsonright to die, due process, bioethics