49 Comments
User's avatar
David J. Sharp's avatar

And again with the shadow docket! Why has Trump been granted this emergency? Is mass firing so urgent it can’t wait for issues to be actually addressed? Again, SCOTUS silently awards dubious behavior.

Expand full comment
Jeff Simpson's avatar

Half are bribed, half are handpicked and bribed. There is no hope for the Supreme court for the next thirty years.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Dismal prospect …

Expand full comment
Jeff Simpson's avatar

Yeah, it's been set in stone for at least ten years and it is still hard to accept. People between the age of 20-40 have essentially zero hope.

Expand full comment
Zach's avatar

Eventually everyone will come around to the realization that this constitution can't be saved; it will have to be tossed out completely and start over. It's the getting to that point, (and especially getting to the point where it can actually be done), that's going to be ugly.

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Welcome to the 1950s! I was there, wasn’t fun.

Expand full comment
Jeff Simpson's avatar

Unfortunately, 100x worse this time around

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Oh, agreed. The Fifties became the Sixties after all … Trump is trying to forge a Fourth Reich.

Expand full comment
Leonard Grossman's avatar

It is sad to see Sotomayor join majority in this outrageous decision.

The Court has clearly abdicated its roll and has become satisfied with becoming the chief enabler of a rogue president

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

Shocking! Just read about this at Politico — seems SCOTUS is again more interested in ruling on rules than the inhumane meat of the matter … and in allowing “Trump be Trump” while it dithers.

Expand full comment
Cheryl R.'s avatar

I wonder if they would agree that those same rules that they are applying also apply to former Presidents including Joe Biden, or only to Donald Trump?

Expand full comment
David J. Sharp's avatar

A most valid observation. I think that SCOTUS is going out of its way to show Trump its obedience—it entertains “emergencies” that occur only in Trump’s mind and pursuant to his own kingly arrogance.

Expand full comment
Jeff Simpson's avatar

The most powerful and respected legal minds in the world saw a man standing over a sleeping child and forcefully covering the child's mouth with a pillow, then said: "well, just holding a pillow isn't illegal. we couldn't possibly stop him now, because what's there to stop?"

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

"greenlighting the dismantling of the federal government in a manner that will later be effectively impossible to undo.” Justice Jackson's dissent

Expand full comment
Marsha Rose's avatar

I think that’s the plan.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

And an evil, rotten plan it is

Expand full comment
GeorgeC's avatar

Sad that Sotomayor is too cowardly or clueless to object to this obvious political hackery. What about Kagan? There is ZERO excuse to go along with the slimy shadow docket to allow Cheetolini to continue to flaunt the rule of law.

Claiming that they want to maintain "civility" is absolute B.S. The 6 corrupt GQP slimewads deserve open, public, and regular mockery.

Expand full comment
Guillermo Mena's avatar

I think it’s pretty clear from years of her work that Sotomayor is no coward.

It’s much more likely somebody in the majority had sneaked in dicta on the president’s role in relation to reorganizations (to scare off lower court judges and guide the government’s arguments below) and she traded her vote for the language saying the court expresses no opinion on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. And she did so knowing that by concurring she could ram home that point and that was worth more than changing her vote to lose anyway while losing leverage to delete the bad language. And that Jackson was dissenting to make other points.

Expand full comment
Zach's avatar

That's a very good explanation. And yes your first sentence should go without saying.

Expand full comment
GeorgeC's avatar

Good point. I hope that’s the truth since silence is seen as agreement.

Expand full comment
Guillermo Mena's avatar

She wasn’t silent. Her concurrence literally says she agrees with Jackson.

Expand full comment
GeorgeC's avatar

Sotomayor concurred with the Corrupt GQP 6. Kagan couldn't be bothered to weigh in at all.

Expand full comment
Guillermo Mena's avatar

Kagan’s silence is baffling.

Expand full comment
Margaret Fisher SF Bay Area's avatar

Please explain for non legal minds how her statement:

" The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,” she wrote. “I join the Court’s stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance... "

in the face of the SCOTUS previous shadow docket decision to remove nationwide implementation of class action suits won against this administration. If the Vets sue and win in CA ,will this stay Scump's EO across the federal VHHS? or just in Cali?

Expand full comment
Guillermo Mena's avatar

SCOTUS did not issue a previous shadow docket decision to “remove nationwide implementation of class action suits won against this administration.”

In the decision I believe you are referring to, SCOTUS said judges could not issue nationwide injunctions totally paralyzing Executive actions (I disagree with that but it should be clarified). Class actions are still available. And injunctions in class actions are still available. Persons in the class can be protected by those injunctions. The difference is if a person is not in a defined class protected by an injunction, they have to file their own suit or risk whatever the Executive action is being done against them and contest its legality at that point.

None of the stopped nationwide injunctions were “won” cases, as far as I recall. They were preliminary injunctions pending the final decision, which then creates a precedent others can latch on to. If Vets sue in California and define a class of all vets or whatever (depending on the case and the class certification requirements) then the class members everywhere would be protected.

In this decision, Sotomayor is saying, *if* in fact the reorganizations are actually done consistent with current law as they purport to be, then they’ll be fine. (She probably doesn’t think they will be. But she’s saying the court lacked the record to weigh in on that, and she didn’t want them to start publicly theorizing about ways in which the president could gut the government under current law.)

(This is all convoluted enough that I should add the disclaimer that this isn’t legal advice for anyone’s specific case. If you think you have a case, or have a case, and are reading this, get your own lawyer and consult the case. I’m not your lawyer.)

Expand full comment
Claire Battle's avatar

Uggggggh

Expand full comment
Victoria Brown's avatar

Chris, has the shadow

docket always existed?

Is there any way to stop

it?

Expand full comment
Noorillah's avatar

Great question.

Expand full comment
cjpalmero's avatar

I just wanted to mention a great book that Stephen Vladeck wrote on it called The Shadow Docket; he also went into possible ways to stop it. Basically it was not really possible before the 1920s and really didn't come into use in the modern sense until the 1970s.

Expand full comment
LeslieN's avatar

WTH? and Kagan, too?

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

It is to wonder...don't forget Sotomayor.

Expand full comment
LeslieN's avatar

They mentioned Sotomayor, but not Kagan. I thought that odd.

Expand full comment
Michael's avatar

I did too.

Expand full comment
Ann Higgins's avatar

How does this pass the “balance of harm” test? There is little or no harm to the administration in maintaining the status quo, massive harm to those sacked and the administration of the federal government if it goes ahead not to mention the authority of Congress.

The consent/acquiescence of 2 out of the 3 “liberal” justices is vastly disappointing.

Expand full comment
Joeff's avatar

So “all” they decide is that two pieces of paper can’t be enjoined, while the ACTUAL DISMEMBERMENT is not “before” them. This is Alice in Wonderland. Like quibbling over a snuff film while ignoring the actual snuffing. No one’s fooled except maybe SS.

Expand full comment
Morgan Mouchka's avatar

Does this have any implications for APHA vs. NIH and Judge Young's decision to deny the gov's 'stay of relief' and order that grants be reinstated? Could the gov appeal to the Supreme Court to allow the terminations until the case makes it way through the appeal process?

Expand full comment
Guillermo Mena's avatar

1. Not directly (and probably not at all)

2. Yes (but I think the narrower the scope of the case the likelier the record is too robust already, and the applicable law too specific, to get away with that)

Expand full comment
Morgan Mouchka's avatar

Thanks! We literally just got our grant reinstated and am certainly on edge. Hoping we can get a few months of funding during the appeals process.

Expand full comment
Paula Mandell's avatar

Great question!

Expand full comment
Janet Carter's avatar

Damn Shadow Docket! 🤬

Expand full comment
ASBermant's avatar

What I can not understand is in weighing the merits of the “other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied” — which include a showing of “irreparable” harm and equities” how the Court could determine that the merits of a potentially unconstitutional order outweighs the impact on the lives of thousands of government employees. It’s not like Trump can’t fire these employees if the Courts find the order Constitution yet the employees who are fired can’t necessarily get (or will want) their jobs back. The majority’s decision a one way street that causes “irreparable” harm that serves no purpose other than to implement the Project 2025 goal of severely shrinking (decimating) our government.

Expand full comment
Noorillah's avatar

OMG, what won't this bastard ask for in his Executive Order and Memorandums, and what won't the Court hand over to him? Do they never think of the effect of their pandering decisions on the people, and on the country? It seems that they don't, and they don't seem at all careful of the law, which exists for the sake of the people, not for the sake of overreaching presidents and their toady Court.

Expand full comment
Sam.'s avatar

Do these unions just not get it? They've relied for too long on the existence of a government apparatus to mediate disputes *before* they get to strikes. That apparatus is now gone, and whatever semblance of it still exists is really just a distraction to keep the unions from *actually fighting* with the one actual weapon they have: Withholding their labor.

Expand full comment