Many of the Supreme Court’s decisions are reached with no hearings or explanation
The nine justices are making more and more use of the “shadow docket”

IN FIVE WEEKS the Supreme Court will return from its summer break to hear a batch of new disputes, including clashes over abortion and guns. After scrutinising briefs from litigants and amici curiae (friends of the court), the justices will hear oral argument in these cases and—weeks or months later—release opinions explaining why one party won and the other lost. But this methodically adjudicated “merits docket” represents a shrinking proportion of the Supreme Court’s notable business. Although the justices handle about five dozen cases this way each year (down from more than 150 in the 1980s), they dispatch thousands of other legal tangles without fanfare—and often with scant explanation.
This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline “In the shadows”
More from United States

Kamala Harris introduces “Coach” Tim Walz, her trusty running-mate
As Republicans seek to brand their rivals as dangerously liberal, Democrats are matching Donald Trump’s public displays of enthusiasm

Why Kamala Harris picked Tim Walz as her running-mate
Compared with a bolder but more divisive alternative, the Minnesota governor was the easier choice

Kamala Harris leads Donald Trump in our nationwide poll tracker
It is the first lead for a Democratic contender since October 2023
Simone Biles is the most decorated gymnast in history
Her triumphant comeback at the Paris Olympics confirms her as also one of the most popular
Why do conservatives in America love Zyn?
A nicotine pouch has stimulated America’s young men—and the culture wars