The October 2020 #SCOTUS Term doesn't officially end until Monday, October 4.
But despite what some stories will tell you, there have been a total of *33* rulings from the Court thus far from which the three Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents have publicly dissented:
But despite what some stories will tell you, there have been a total of *33* rulings from the Court thus far from which the three Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents have publicly dissented:
12 of these were in cases we all pay attention to, because they were argued (or were companions to argued cases), and were resolved through formal opinions for the Court. But 21 were with respect to "shadow docket" orders, some of which have just as much impact as merits rulings.
And although the Court is done hearing argued cases for this Term, there's still three months left for additional shadow docket activity. Last summer, for instance, there were *five* separate shadow docket rulings from which all (four) of the Democratic appointees dissented.
To be sure, it's easier to focus on argued cases because the denominator (56 this Term) is smaller, compared to literally 1000s of orders on the shadow docket (and 100s that matter).
But any focus on the Court's divisions (and its output more generally) *must* account for this.
But any focus on the Court's divisions (and its output more generally) *must* account for this.
We also need to discuss how (and who) should even be *tracking* shadow docket rulings.
#SCOTUS doesn't include them as part of its official data; @SCOTUSblog includes them only when there's an opinion for the Court, and @HarvLRev (so far) tracks only stays of *executions.*
#SCOTUS doesn't include them as part of its official data; @SCOTUSblog includes them only when there's an opinion for the Court, and @HarvLRev (so far) tracks only stays of *executions.*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
