Supreme Court Uses Shadow Docket More Than Merits Docket

Analysis of the term ending in October 2025 reveals that the Supreme Court of the United States decided more cases through its shadow docket—emergency applications often decided by secret ballot without signed opinions—than through the traditional merits docket. According to the analysis, the court frequently granted emergency requests from the Donald Trump administration to bypass lower court injunctions and expedite policies, including the redrawing of Louisiana's electoral map and the deportation of individuals to South Sudan.

Chief Justice John Roberts referred more substantive emergency cases for a full court vote than any other justice. While the court continued to issue high-profile merits rulings on the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment privacy, and campaign finance, the shift toward emergency orders has sparked internal conflict.

Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that unreasoned, unsigned orders undermine judicial transparency and credibility, with Jackson stating that public faith in the system requires clear explanations for decisions. In contrast, Associate Justice Samuel Alito defended the practice, noting that the parties involved, rather than the court, are responsible for filing the emergency applications.