Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’: A Preview of Upcoming Decisions on Student Loans, Elections, Abortion, and Climate
Background
The Supreme Court’s shadow docket, also known as the “emergency docket,” refers to the court’s process for handling urgent matters outside of its regular docket. These cases often involve requests for an injunction or stay pending the court’s review of a lower court decision. Although the shadow docket doesn’t receive the same level of public attention as the regular docket, its outcomes can have significant implications on various aspects of American life.
Student Loans
One pending case concerning the shadow docket involves a challenge to the Biden administration’s student loan debt relief plan. The Republican-led states have filed a lawsuit arguing that the president does not have the authority to cancel student loan debt unilaterally. A coalition of 23 Republican-led states is seeking an emergency stay from the Supreme Court, asking that the lower court’s decision blocking the debt relief program be put on hold while the case proceeds.
Elections
Another contentious issue likely to surface in the shadow docket revolves around election laws. A case concerning
Abortion
Abortion rights are another area where the shadow docket may play a role. Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which is currently being challenged in federal court, could be appealed to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay if the lower courts uphold the law. If granted, this would prevent the implementation of the ban while the case is being reviewed.
Climate
A climate change case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), could also make its way to the shadow docket. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments regarding whether the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. If an injunction is granted while the case is being appealed, it could prevent the implementation of new regulations during the court’s review.
Introduction
The Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket, a term coined by legal scholars, refers to the non-publicized
emergency applications
for
injunctions
and other forms of
relief
that the Court considers outside its regular docketing process. This
obscure aspect
of the Court’s decision-making is crucial to understand, given its potential impact on significant
cases
that have shaped American law and policy. Many landmark rulings have originated from the Shadow Docket, including link, link, and link. In this article, we will delve into notable upcoming decisions concerning
student loans
,
elections
,
abortion
, and
climate change
.
The Shadow Docket, also known as the “dark side of the docket,” is a critical aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision-making process that often flies under the public radar. It involves emergency applications, typically submitted without notice to lower courts or opposing parties, seeking temporary relief, usually in the form of an injunction. These applications are generally decided by a single justice or a small group of justices acting informally, rather than the full bench. The decisions made on the Shadow Docket can have significant implications for American law and policy.
Despite its importance, decisions made on the Shadow Docket are not always publicly disclosed in a timely manner, if at all. This lack of transparency has led to controversy and criticism from various quarters, particularly when the Court’s decisions seem to favor one party or another, creating a perception of bias. However, it is essential to remember that the Shadow Docket exists for a reason: to provide quick relief in emergencies when time is of the essence.
Throughout American history, numerous significant cases have originated from the Shadow Docket. For example, in 1973, the Court granted an emergency stay in link, effectively preventing states from enforcing restrictive abortion laws until the case could be fully argued and decided on its merits. Another seminal decision, link, which established the principle of “one person, one vote,” was also decided on an expedited basis through the Shadow Docket.
As we look ahead to upcoming decisions, several cases are poised to have a considerable impact on American society. In the realm of student loans, the Court is expected to address the constitutionality of student loan debt relief programs. Similarly, in the context of elections, key cases may determine the legality of various voting laws and procedures. On the issue of abortion, the Court is likely to consider several challenges to state abortion restrictions, while in the realm of climate change, important cases may address the extent of the federal government’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
In this article, we will explore these and other notable cases in more detail. By understanding the implications of decisions made on the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket, we can better appreciate the role of the Court in shaping American law and policy.
Student Loans
Background of the Student Loan Debt Crisis
The student loan debt crisis in the United States has become a significant issue for millions of borrowers. According to recent statistics, over 45 million Americans collectively owe approximately $1.7 trillion in student loans. This debt burden is not evenly distributed, with the average borrower holding around $32,731 in student loan debt.
The current student loan repayment plans, such as Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE), and Income-Based Repayment (IBR), are designed to make monthly payments more manageable for borrowers. These plans cap monthly payments at a percentage of discretionary income and offer loan forgiveness after a certain period (usually 20 or 25 years). However, these plans only provide partial relief, as borrowers may still end up paying more than the original loan amount due to interest accrual.
Upcoming Supreme Court cases on student loans
Two significant Supreme Court cases involving student loans are currently scheduled for decision: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (Case No. 20-276) and Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. (Case No. 15-1389).
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College is a high-profile case challenging the use of race in college admissions. The organization, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), argues that Harvard College’s admissions process unfairly disadvantages Asian American applicants by limiting their admission numbers. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of SFFA, affirmative action policies in higher education could face significant changes, potentially leading to reduced diversity on campuses.
Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.
In Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., the court is deciding whether a landowner, Hawkes Company, should be held liable for filling wetlands without a permit. While this case does not directly concern student loans, its decision could have implications for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and student loan discharge applications. The case revolves around the Clean Water Act’s jurisdiction over isolated waters, which may impact how the Department of Education determines eligibility for loan discharges due to hardship situations involving wetlands. A more restrictive interpretation of the Clean Water Act could potentially limit the number of loan discharge applications approved, creating additional challenges for borrowers seeking relief from their student debt.
I Elections
Overview of recent election-related controversies
Elections in the United States have been a source of significant controversy in recent years. Mail-in voting, a method that allows eligible voters to cast their ballots by mail instead of in person, has been a particularly contentious issue. With the COVID-19 pandemic forcing many states to expand mail-in voting options in 2020 to ensure public health and safety, there were numerous allegations of fraud and irregularities. However, multiple studies and investigations have found no evidence of widespread voter fraud through mail-in voting.
Another election controversy revolves around gerrymandering, the practice of manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party over another. Gerrymandering can result in representatives being elected who do not accurately represent the will of their constituents and undermine the democratic process. The Supreme Court has ruled on several gerrymandering cases in recent years, setting important precedents for fair districting.
Lastly, campaign finance
regulations have been a hot topic in elections. The role of money in politics and the potential for undue influence from wealthy donors raises concerns about transparency, fairness, and corruption. There have been numerous efforts to reform campaign finance laws, including the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) decisions that loosened restrictions on campaign contributions and spending.
Upcoming Supreme Court cases related to elections
There are currently two major election-related cases before the Supreme Court: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
(Case No. 20-637) and Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (Case No. 20-845).
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (Case No. 20-637)
In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
, Arizona’s voting laws are at the heart of the controversy. The state enacted several provisions, including requiring proof of citizenship for registering to vote and prohibiting out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting. The Democratic National Committee argues that these laws discriminate against minority voters and violate the Voting Rights Act. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Arizona, it could set a precedent for other states to enact similar restrictions.
Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee (Case No. 20-845)
The Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee
case revolves around campaign finance regulations. The Republican National Committee is challenging a Federal Election Commission regulation that allows state and local party committees to transfer funds to their national party committee without adhering to federal contribution limits. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for campaign finance law and the role of political parties in elections.
Abortion
Background of abortion rights in America
Abortion is a highly controversial issue in the United States, with deep divisions among various political, ethical, and religious perspectives. The legal framework for abortion rights has evolved significantly since the landmark Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized a woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. This ruling was based on the privacy rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Over the decades, subsequent court cases have refined and challenged the scope of this right.
Recap of major Supreme Court cases
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), for instance, reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion but introduced the “undue burden” standard, which allows states to enact restrictions on abortion as long as they do not place an unreasonable burden on a woman’s ability to obtain the procedure. Since then, numerous state-level legislative efforts have aimed to limit access to abortion.
Current state of abortion access and restrictions
Recent state-level developments
Two recent cases have drawn national attention: the Texas Heartbeat Act (SB 8), which bans abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically around six weeks into pregnancy; and Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 202These laws represent a significant challenge to Roe v. Wade and abortion rights, as they directly conflict with the Supreme Court’s established precedent.
Upcoming Supreme Court cases on abortion
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Case No. 19-1392)
Background: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a case challenging Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the state, it could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade and undermine constitutional protections for abortion rights.
Implications: Should the Supreme Court uphold Mississippi’s 15-week ban, it could lead to a patchwork of abortion laws across different states, with some offering more restrictive regulations and others maintaining more permissive ones. This could create significant challenges for women seeking access to safe and legal abortion services.
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo (Case No. 18-1347)
Background: June Medical Services LLC v. Russo is a case concerning Louisiana’s requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the clinic, stating that the requirement placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions.
Impact: While the Supreme Court ruling in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo did not directly challenge Roe v. Wade, it signaled that the court may be more inclined to protect abortion rights in future cases.
Climate Change
Background of Climate Change Legislation and Litigation in the U.S.
The issue of climate change has gained significant attention in the United States, leading to various legislative initiatives and legal battles. The Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA), enacted in 1970 and 1972, respectively, represent the foundation of federal environmental policy in the U.S. These acts have been crucial in regulating emissions and pollution, with climate change implications.
Discussion on Current Federal Policies and Initiatives
Under the CAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set regulations targeting greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial sources. Meanwhile, the CWA is designed to control water pollution and ensure clean waters. However, these acts have faced challenges in addressing climate change directly. The ongoing political debates on the role of the federal government in mitigating climate change and its impact on public health have led to a contentious legal landscape.
Upcoming Supreme Court Cases Related to Climate Change
Juliana v. United States (Case No. 15-2224)
A notable case is Juliana v. United States, filed by 21 youth plaintiffs in 2015 (Case No. 15-2224). They argued that the U.S. government had violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property by failing to address climate change, despite knowing its dangers. If successful, the case could set a legal precedent for future environmental litigation against the federal government and other entities.
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (Case No. 19-1365)
Another significant case is West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (Case No. 19-1365). This case challenges the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants under the CAThe plaintiffs argue that the regulation exceeds the EPA’s authority and violates state sovereignty. If the court rules in their favor, it could limit the regulatory power of the federal government under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and weaken the CAA’s climate change provisions.
VI. Conclusion
Recap of Key Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
The upcoming term at the Supreme Court promises significant decisions on various pressing issues, including student loans, elections, abortion, and climate change. In the realm of student loans, the Court is expected to rule on the validity of a Biden administration plan to cancel some student debt for millions of borrowers. A decision on this case could impact the financial future of many Americans and the broader economy. Moving on to elections, the Court is set to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law that prohibits most out-of-state political donations. A ruling in this case could have far-reaching implications for campaign finance regulations and the democratic process. Furthermore, the Court will consider a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade or significantly weaken it. Lastly, the Court will hear a case concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. A decision in this case could significantly impact the United States’ efforts to address climate change and reduce carbon emissions.
Importance of Staying Informed About Decisions Made on the Shadow Docket
Although not as widely publicized as regular court decisions, it’s essential to stay informed about cases decided via the Shadow Docket. These emergency applications for injunctions or stays can significantly impact American society with little public notice. For example, during the pandemic, the Court issued numerous rulings related to COVID-19 vaccines and restrictions on religious gatherings through the Shadow Docket. A recent decision blocked the implementation of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) order that required large events, including cruise ships, to follow specific guidelines. This decision potentially endangered public health by limiting the CDC’s ability to regulate gatherings and prevent the spread of COVID-19. Such decisions, made swiftly and with less scrutiny, underscore the importance of staying informed about the Supreme Court’s actions on the Shadow Docket.
