111 Iowa L. Rev. Online 88 (2026)
Abstract
The frequency of “shadow” or emergency docket decisions is increasing, especially in the wake of the inauguration of the second Trump Administration. At the same time, shadow docket dissents are becoming increasingly repetitive. This Essay identifies two trends that demonstrate the shadow docket is approaching singularity. First, as shadow docket decisions grow in number, dissents have more decisions from which to pull contradictory results. In other words, dissents can more easily accuse the majority of hypocrisy and back up their own positions by pointing to prior cases where the Court reached the opposite result. The second trend is that dissents note their disagreement on the merits without adding new analysis. As shadow docket decisions increase, so do the number of dissents that merely explain why the Court misapplied the relevant factors for a stay or preliminary injunction. In this way, the Justices become more like district court judges making specific fact-bound judgments in their writings instead of announcing general rules of law. Taken together, these two trends suggest the shadow docket risks collapsing in on itself. Like an AI bot that has been fed other AI material, the quality of the output slowly continues to degrade until all of it looks the same. The Court can either continue down this black hole–like path and allow the shadow docket to crush itself under its own weight, sucking up surrounding time and energy from the merits docket, or the Court can chart a new course. Contrary to the typical refrain that more transparency is needed on the shadow docket, this Essay’s solution is simplicity on the shadow docket: fewer explanations of decisions and dissents. Greater simplicity on the shadow docket would save time, reduce criticism of the shadow docket, and keep the shadow docket from degrading into repetitive disputes over the application of law to facts.