The growing workload of the US Supreme Court’s so-called shadow docket has significantly impacted the federal government’s leading lawyers at the high court. The Solicitor General’s Office, responsible for all the federal government’s cases at the Supreme Court, has noted this as one of the most significant shifts in the court’s work, according to US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar.
Cases on the shadow, or emergency, docket are often significantly expedited despite posing some of the most contentious issues. This term, the Court heard argument in five shadow docket cases, including an effort to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado primary ballot and a challenge to Idaho’s abortion ban.
Such an increase in workload led to the Justice Department requesting to add two attorneys to its workforce of 23 in its 2024 budget justification. The intensifying pace of work hasn’t been lost on high court Judges either, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor vocally noting an increase in her workload due to the court’s escalating emergency docket.
The issue of the so-called shadow docket has triggered some criticism and self-reflection within the Court. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement suggested at an ABA panel that the Court was partly to blame. By accepting more shadow docket cases, he argued, the Court risked making a higher proportion of its cases seem more controversial.
The elevated pace and high-pressure environment of these emergency cases is a significant concern as they typically necessitate high-stakes decisions based on incomplete information. Despite this, both the Biden and the preceding Trump administration have been responsible for bringing many cases to the shadow docket for important policy matters.
As the workload continues to increase, it seems that the struggle to manage these emergency cases will continue to pose a significant concern for both legal professionals and the justice system as a whole.