To improve the administration of justice by requiring written explanations by the Supreme Court of its decisions and the disclosure of votes by justices in cases within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court that involve preliminary injunctive relief, and other purposes.
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
IntroducedMs. Ross (for herself, Mr. Raskin, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, …
Summary
What This Bill Does
The Shadow Docket Sunlight Act requires the Supreme Court to provide written explanations and disclose how each justice voted whenever the Court grants, denies, or vacates preliminary injunctive relief or stays of such relief. This addresses growing concerns about the Court's "shadow docket" - emergency orders issued without full briefing or public reasoning.
Who Benefits and How
Legal scholars, journalists, and the public benefit from increased transparency into Supreme Court decision-making on emergency orders. Currently, many consequential decisions on the shadow docket come with no explanation, making it impossible to understand the Court's reasoning.
Litigants and advocacy organizations gain clearer insight into how to structure future arguments before the Court, as the required explanations must evaluate specific legal criteria (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest).
Congress gains enhanced oversight capacity through biennial compliance reports from the Federal Judicial Center.
Who Bears the Burden and How
Supreme Court justices face increased workload, as they must now draft written explanations evaluating four specific criteria for every emergency order on injunctive relief. This may slow the issuance of emergency orders or require additional staff resources.
The Federal Judicial Center must conduct compliance assessments and submit reports to Congress every two years, creating new administrative responsibilities.
Key Provisions
- Requires written explanations for all Supreme Court orders granting, denying, or vacating preliminary injunctive relief or stays
- Mandates disclosure of how each participating justice voted on such orders
- Specifies four criteria that must be addressed in each written explanation (likelihood of success on merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- Allows flexibility through multiple opinions representing a majority, rather than requiring a single unified explanation
- Excludes purely administrative, scheduling, or certiorari-related orders from the requirements
- Establishes biennial Congressional reporting by the Federal Judicial Center on compliance
Evidence Chain:
This summary is derived from the structured analysis below. See "Detailed Analysis" for per-title beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
Primary Purpose
Requires the Supreme Court to publish written explanations and vote disclosures when granting, denying, or vacating preliminary injunctive relief or stays of such relief, addressing transparency concerns about the Court's 'shadow docket'.
Policy Domains
Legislative Strategy
"Increase transparency and accountability of Supreme Court emergency orders by mandating written explanations and vote disclosure"
Likely Beneficiaries
- Legal scholars and court watchers
- Media and journalists covering the judiciary
- Litigants seeking to understand Court reasoning
- Public interested in judicial transparency
- Congress (oversight capacity)
Likely Burden Bearers
- Supreme Court justices (increased workload for emergency orders)
- Federal Judicial Center (new reporting requirements)
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "supreme_court"
- → Supreme Court of the United States, including any individual justice or set of justices acting on behalf of the Court
- "the_director"
- → Director of the Federal Judicial Center
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
The Supreme Court of the United States, including any individual justice or set of justices when acting on behalf of the Supreme Court of the United States
All cases within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court other than those within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology