GRAPHIC: BLADIMIR LEMUS ’26/THE HAWK
The U.S. Supreme Court issued the decision in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo (2025) to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to resume raids in California, in which immigration officers may “interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien” about their immigration status.
The decision now allows for ethnicity to be considered a “relevant factor” for interrogation when alongside “other salient factors” like profession, language and accent. The court made this decision through a “shadow docket,” without oral arguments or a written opinion.
What is a shadow docket?
A shadow docket is used to describe a procedure in which the Supreme Court makes a decision without the typical hearings and oral arguments. The term was coined by William Baude, a professor at University of Chicago Law School, in 2015. Normally, cases are decided through the Supreme Court’s “merit docket,” where justices hear oral arguments, read briefs and issue full written opinions. Other judges will often concur or dissent. These cases can take up to weeks or months at a time.
The shadow docket procedure is used when the Supreme Court believes an applicant is “at risk of suffering irreparable harm in the event their case was not decided as quickly as possible,” according to EBSCO. While these decisions are often brief, judges have the option to dissent if they disagree with the majority.
Why are shadow dockets in the news?
The shadow docket is being used more frequently to make quick decisions in controversial cases, according to the Harvard Political Review.
Throughout the 2024-25 Supreme Court term, 111 cases were decided by shadow docket, a greater than a 150% increase from the 2023-24 term. This spike in the use of shadow dockets has gained media attention, as the Court has used this process to rule on controversial issues, including gerrymandering, environmental regulation, the covid-19 pandemic and abortion.
Historically, when a case was on a shadow docket, the individual justice assigned to that part of the country took oral argument and issued a signed order explaining their reasoning, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. However, the Court’s treatment of the shadow docket began to change in the 1980s when the Court stopped formally adjourning during the summer. Because of this change, justices began to stop holding hearings, as they could work on shadow dockets collectively rather than individually.
Examples of shadow dockets
The most recent use of the shadow docket is Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo. Other examples include Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo (2020), in which the Supreme Court suspended New York’s capacity restrictions on religious ceremonies during the covid-19 pandemic.
In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson (2021), the Supreme Court refused to block a Texas abortion restriction that prohibits abortions after the fetal heartbeat, in a one-paragraph unsigned order. In Louisiana v. American Rivers (2022), the Supreme Court supported Trump’s regulation preventing states from blocking infrastructure projects that would contaminate rivers and lakes.
The most high-profile shadow docket decision was Bush v. Gore in 2000, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a recount in Florida was not necessary, thus giving George W. Bush the presidency.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the use of the shadow docket typically reverses or suspends lower courts’ orders while a case is still being decided.