A Troubling Milestone: Most Supreme Court Rulings Are Secretive Votes With Little Justification

ProPublica reports that for the first time in its modern history, the Supreme Court decided more cases via its 'shadow docket' (emergency, largely unsigned rulings) than through traditional argued cases in the term ending October 2025—63 shadow docket orders versus 56 merits docket decisions. The article, authored by Ken B. Morales and backed by ProPublica's nonprofit investigative unit, provides substantial evidentiary support: a two-decade data analysis, named legal experts (Stephen Vladeck, Donald Ayer), specific case examples (Texas abortion ban, Louisiana redistricting, ICE detention practices), and quantified comparisons (Trump administration filed 32 shadow docket petitions in 2025 alone versus 8 total for Obama and Bush administrations in 16 years combined). The reporting demonstrates rigor through methodological transparency—explaining how cases were categorized, AI model use for capital case identification, and cross-validation with court experts—though the article's framing explicitly connects these findings to Trump administration advantage, which reflects editorial selection but does not undermine the factual claims. Independent search results corroborate ProPublica's focus on expanded presidential power and recent Supreme Court rulings, though they do not directly address the shadow docket phenomenon or validate the specific milestone finding; the PBS and NPR results discuss recent major Supreme Court decisions but do not provide independent verification of ProPublica's comparative historical analysis. Readers should monitor ongoing congressional action—Rep. Jamie Raskin's proposed legislation for shadow docket transparency—and watch for potential responses from the Court itself, which declined to comment on ProPublica's questions.