Analysis: Biden's Supreme Court losses prompt more 'shadow docket'
scrutiny
Send a link to a friend
[August 28, 2021]
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Joe
Biden's administration was dealt a double blow by the
conservative-majority Supreme Court this week, raising new questions
about how the justices handle cases brought via an emergency process
known as the "shadow docket."
The court in recent years has increasingly made substantive decisions on
major issues via the shadow docket, deciding quickly and sometimes late
at night in a process that critics from across the ideological spectrum
say lacks transparency.
The administration of Biden's Republican predecessor, President Donald
Trump, did very well with the process, winning a wide majority of the
cases it brought via emergency applications. Some experts attributed
that to a court that has traditionally been deferential to the White
House.
This week's decisions have raised questions as to whether a Democratic
president receives the same friendly reception from a court with a 6-3
conservative majority.
"What we are seeing are the consequences of a deeply conservative court,
with the added travesties of the shadow docket," said Elizabeth Wydra,
president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal
nonprofit based in Washington.
The court in a decision https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-ends-federal-residential-eviction-moratorium-2021-08-27
on Thursday night ended the pandemic-related federal moratorium on
residential evictions imposed by Biden's administration.
That came two days after a Tuesday evening decision denying Biden's bid
to rescind an immigration policy implemented by Trump that forced
thousands of asylum seekers to stay in Mexico awaiting U.S. hearings.
That decision requires the government to revive Trump's "remain in
Mexico" policy, formally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP)
program.
In both cases the three liberals on the court dissented.
Trump won 28 of the 41 cases his administration brought via the shadow
docket, which his administration turned to at a much higher rate than
those of both Republican President George Bush and Democratic President
Barack Obama.
The "remain in Mexico" request was the first request made by Biden, who
faces a court with which he is ideologically out of sync.
[to top of second column]
|
A view shows the pediment of the U.S. Supreme Court building in
Washington, D.C., U.S. June 25, 2021. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno
BREYER RAISES QUESTIONS
In the evictions case, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer referenced
some of the shadow docket criticism in his dissenting opinion.
"These questions call for considered decision-making informed by
full briefing and argument. Their answers impact the health of
millions," he wrote.
The majority appeared to respond to Breyer in the unsigned ruling,
saying the case had been "thoroughly briefed" and that the court had
undertaken a "careful review" of the relevant court papers.
Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin
School of Law who is a critic of how the court has handled shadow
docket cases, noted that the court did explain its evictions
decision in an eight-page opinion. By contrast, the immigration case
was resolved in a two-paragraph order.
The eviction decision "responded to at least some of the concerns,"
Vladeck said. But, he added, "I still think decisions with
implications as wide-ranging as the eviction moratorium would
benefit from plenary review," meaning that the court would hear oral
arguments and have more time to consider the case.
But Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University
School of Law in Ohio, said he believed the court handled both cases
appropriately based on court precedent. In the evictions case, he
added, the administration knew the court would likely find the
moratorium was unlawful based on the justices' June decision
that grudgingly allowed a previous version to remain in place.
"The CDC was on notice that the court would be very skeptical of a
renewed moratorium, and made little effort to insulate the new
order," Adler said.
Last month, a Reuters analysis of emergency applications over
the previous 12 months showed how certain litigants - most notably
the Trump administration and religious entities - fared better than
others.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Scott Malone and Jonathan
Oatis)
[© 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2021 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |