Supreme Court Shadow Docket Tracker — Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

Over the past few years, the Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the use of its “shadow docket,” a previously rarely used procedure for certain emergency decisions. Normally, the Court decides cases based on a thorough briefing and arguments that culminate in written decisions that clearly lay out the majority’s reasoning. This allows the public to evaluate the Court’s justifications and imposes discipline on the justices’ decision-making processes.

The shadow docket provides a fast-track process for the Court to hear emergency applications, which typically involve requests that the Court temporarily lift lower court orders. Historically, this process was used infrequently and limited to instances where an applicant faced serious irreparable harm, such as a death row inmate facing execution. Shadow docket cases usually involve limited briefing, no oral argument, and rulings with little or no analysis of the Court’s reasoning.

The Court is now using the shadow docket at an unprecedented rate for lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s most controversial actions. In its first 20 weeks, the second Trump administration made as many shadow docket applications — 19 — that the Biden administration made over four years, according to an analysis by Georgetown Professor Stephen Vladeck. The Obama and George W. Bush administrations combined made only 8 requests over 16 years.

The Trump administration has prevailed in the vast majority of its requests for emergency action, as the data below shows. These rulings have allowed administration policies to move forward after lower courts had found that the administration’s actions were likely illegal. While the Court’s shadow docket decisions are not a final ruling on the legal merits, there is still significant impact on the people affected while the case remains pending, which is why the lower courts had issued their orders in the first place. Among other things, the Court’s shadow docket rulings have led to mass firings of civil servants, the defunding of scientific research, and racial profiling in immigration sweeps.

The lack of reasoning in most shadow docket rulings also leaves lower courts with little guidance about how to address similar issues in other cases.

A clear pattern has emerged: The Court is using the shadow docket to quickly and dramatically expand executive power. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars. Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”

This resource tracks cases on the Supreme Court’s shadow docket that relate to the administration’s policies and practices. It notes whether the Court has decided to rule in favor of the administration at least partially and whether the majority offered any reasoning for its decision. It also includes notable commentary from justices about the use of the shadow docket.

Since January 20, 2025, the Supreme Court has issued 22 decisions on the shadow docket concerning administration actions.

• 19 ruled for the administration at least partially
• 3 ruled against the administration
• 7 were not accompanied by any written explanation (most other rulings included only brief analysis, sometimes as short as a sentence)

Three shadow docket applications are currently pending.

Methodology: The cases below had applications that were filed on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket starting January 20, 2025. Almost all of the emergency applications were brought by the Department of Justice. Only one case was brought by a group of people seeking to urgently halt government action. The source of the information is the Supreme Court’s website, as well as information collected by SCOTUSblog and Shadow Docket Watch. A spreadsheet of the data is available here.

Pending Shadow Docket Applications

Shadow Docket Applications

Note: The assessment of whether the Court provided a written explanation includes cases where that explanation is scant but nonetheless still offers some modicum of a rationale. In other words, a “Yes” does not necessarily indicate a comprehensive explanation for the Court’s decision. Two applications were ultimately withdrawn by the government: Trump v. Global Health Council and Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees. For more information on these two cases, see below.

Application Pending

Trump v. Orr

Status: Pending 
Topic: LGBTQ+ rights 
Issue: Whether the State Department can refuse to allow passport applicants (in the plaintiff’s certified class) to obtain a passport that reflects their gender identity

Case history 
District of Massachusetts: Required the State Department to allow self-selection for passport applicants (in the plaintiff’s certified class) (Judge Kobick) 
First Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Montecalvo, Rikelman, and Aframe) 

Trump v. Cook

Status: Oral arguments scheduled for January 2026 
Topic: Independent agencies 
Issue: Whether President Trump can remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors

Case history 
District of Columbia: Blocked the removal of Lisa Cook (Judge Cobb) 
DC Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Childs and Garcia, Judge Katsas dissenting)

Trump v. Illinois

Status: Pending 
Topic: National Guard 
Issue: Whether the Trump administration can federalize and deploy the National Guard in Illinois

Case history 
Northern District of Illinois: Blocked the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Illinois (Judge Perry) 
Seventh Circuit: Let the relevant part of the decision stand (Judges Rovner, Hamilton, and St. Eve)

Application Decided

Noem v. National TPS Alliance

Decided October 3, 2025 
Topic: Immigration 
Issue: Whether the Department of Homeland Security can terminate a portion of the Temporary Protected Status designations relating to Venezuelan nationals 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would deny the application. Justice Jackson dissented.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. This Court should have stayed its hand. Having opted instead to join the fray, the Court plainly misjudges the irreparable harm and balance-of-the-equities factors by privileging the bald assertion of unconstrained executive power over countless families’ pleas for the stability our Government has promised them.” 
—Justice Jackson

Case history 
Northern District of California: Blocked the termination of the program (Judge Chen) 
Ninth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Wardlaw, Mendoza, and Johnstone) 

Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition

Decided September 26, 2025 
Topic: Government spending 
Issue: Whether the government must obligate foreign aid funds that were previously appropriated by Congress 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “This case is not a likely candidate for a grant of emergency relief. Per usual on our emergency docket, we have had to consider this application on a short fuse — less than three weeks. We have done so with scant briefing, no oral argument, and no opportunity to deliberate in conference.” 
—Justice Kagan

Case history 
District of Columbia: Ordered the federal government to obligate the funding (Judge Ali) 
DC Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Pillard and Pan, Judge Walker dissenting)

Trump v. Slaughter

Decided September 22, 2025 
Topic: Independent agencies 
Issue: Whether the president can terminate a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: No 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars. Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.” 
—Justice Kagan

Case history 
District of Columbia: Blocked the termination of the member of the Federal Trade Commission (Judge AliKhan) 
DC Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Millett and Pillard, Judge Rao dissenting) 

Trump v. Global Health Council

Status: Withdrawn 
Topic: Government spending 
Issue: Whether the government must obligate foreign aid funds that were previously appropriated by Congress

Case history 
District of Columbia: Ordered the federal government to obligate funding (Judge Ali) 
DC Circuit: Vacated the order (Judges Henderson and Katsas, Judge Pan dissenting)

Noem v. Perdomo

Decided September 8, 2025 
Topic: Immigration 
Issue: Whether federal officers can conduct investigative stops in Southern California based on “apparent race or ethnicity,” the use of Spanish or accented English, presence at a location where undocumented immigrants “are known to gather,” or working at certain jobs such as landscaping or construction 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reason given: No 
Concurrences and dissents:Concurrence from Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “Some situations simply cry out for an explanation, such as when the Government’s conduct flagrantly violates the law, or when lower courts and litigants need guidance about the issues on which they should focus.” 
—Justice Sotomayor

Case history 
Central District of California: Blocked the investigative stops (Judge Frimpong) 
Ninth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Gould, Berzon, and Sung) 

National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association

Decided August 21, 2025 
Topic: Government spending 
Issue: Whether the National Institutes of Health can terminate grants for ongoing research projects 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Concurrence from Justice Barrett. Chief Justice Roberts concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Justice Gorsuch concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in part and dissented in part. Justice Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part. 

Commentary about the shadow docket: “For a cautionary tale about lawmaking on the emergency docket, look no further than this newest iteration. By today’s order, an evenly divided Court neuters judicial review of grant terminations by sending plaintiffs on a likely futile, multivenue quest for complete relief.” 
—Justice Jackson 
“This Court often addresses requests for interim relief — sometimes pending a writ of certiorari . . . and sometimes after a writ of certiorari is granted. . . . And either way, when this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts. Of course, decisions regarding interim relief are not necessarily conclusive as to the merits because further litigation may follow. But regardless of a decision’s procedural posture, its reasoning — its ratio decidendi — carries precedent weight in future cases” (internal quotations and citations omitted). 
—Justice Gorsuch

Case history 
District of Massachusetts: Blocked termination of the grants (Judge Young) 
First Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Montecalvo, Kayatta, and Rikelman)

Trump v. Boyle

Decided July 23, 2025 
Topic: Independent agencies 
Issue: Whether the president can terminate members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission without cause 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reason given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents:Concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “Once again, this Court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress.” 
—Justice Kagan

Case history 
District of Maryland: Blocked termination of members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Judge Maddox) 
Fourth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Heytens, Gregory, and Wynn)

McMahon v. New York

Decided July 14, 2025 
Topic: Civil service job protections 
Issue: Whether the Department of Education can fire its employees as part of a reduction in workforce plan 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: No 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it. . . . The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave. Unable to join in this misuse of our emergency docket, I respectfully dissent.” 
—Justice Sotomayor

Case history 
District of Massachusetts: Ordered the Department of Education to reinstate fired employees (Judge Joun) 
First Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Barron, Kayatta, and Rikelman)

Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees

Decided July 8, 2025 
Topic: Civil service job protections 
Issue: Whether the Trump administration can implement an executive order that directed agencies to prepare and execute plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Concurrence by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Jackson dissented.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations.” 
—Justice Jackson

Case history 
Northern District of California: Prevented the government from implementing the executive order. (Judge Illston) 
Ninth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Fletcher and Koh, Judge Callahan dissenting)

Trump v. CASA (consolidated with Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey)

Decided June 27, 2025 
Topic: Immigration/Judicial Authority 
Issue: Whether lower court judges could issue nationwide injunctions that barred the federal government from enforcing its executive order ending birthright citizenship 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes. Unlike most shadow docket cases, Trump v. CASA, received oral argument, briefing, and an extensive written opinion 
Concurrences and dissents: Concurrence by Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Concurrence by Justice Alito, joined by Justice Thomas. Concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson dissented.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “By needlessly granting the Government’s emergency application to prohibit universal injunctions, the Court has cleared a path for the Executive to choose law-free action at this perilous moment for our Constitution — right when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints.” 
—Justice Jackson

Case history 
Trump v. CASA 
District of Maryland: Blocked the executive order’s enforcement. (Judge Boardman) 
Fourth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Harris and Gregory, Judge Niemeyer dissenting)  
Trump v. Washington
Western District of Washington: Blocked the executive order’s enforcement. (Judge Coughenour) 
Ninth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Canby and M. Smith, Judge Forrest concurring) 
Trump v. New Jersey 
District of Massachusetts: Blocked the executive order’s enforcement. (Judge Sorokin) 
First Circuit: Let order stand (Judges Barron, Rikelman, and Aframe)

Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.

Decided June 23, 2025 
Topic: Immigration 
Issue: Whether the Department of Homeland Security can remove noncitizens to “third countries” (or countries not listed on their removal orders) 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: No. The Supreme Court did not provide a written explanation when it issued its decision, but it later granted a motion for clarification with a very brief explanation. 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Sotomayor dissented to the initial decision, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. On the granted motion for clarification, Justice Kagan concurred and Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.” 
—Justice Sotomayor

Case history 
District of Massachusetts: Blocked the Department of Homeland Security from removing noncitizens to “third countries,” unless certain conditions were met (Judge Murphy) 
First Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Montecalvo, Howard, and Aframe)

U.S. DOGE Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Decided June 6, 2025 
Topic: DOGE actions 
Issue: Whether to permit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) discovery of certain DOGE materials under the Freedom of Information Act 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would deny the application.

Commentary about the shadow docket: None

Case history 
District of Columbia: Allowed CREW access to limited discovery (Judge Cooper) 
DC Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Henderson, Wilkins, and Childs)

Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees 

Decided June 6, 2025 
Topic: DOGE actions 
Issue: Whether members of the Department of Government Efficiency could access records systems at the Social Security Administration 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Kagan would deny the application. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “Once again, this Court dons its emergency-responder gear, rushes to the scene, and uses its equitable power to fan the flames rather than extinguish them.” 
—Justice Jackson

Case history 
District of Maryland: Prevented DOGE team members from accessing Social Security Administration records (Judge Hollander) 
Fourth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Diaz, King, Gregory, Wynn, Thacker, Harris, Heytens, Benjamin, and Berner; Judges Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Agee, Richardson, Quattlebaum, and Rushing dissenting)

Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees

Status: Withdrawn 
Topic: Civil service job protections 
Issue: Whether the Trump administration can implement an executive order that directed agencies to prepare and execute plans to reduce the size of the federal workforce

Case history 
Northern District of California: Blocked the administration from implementing the executive order (Judge Illston).

Noem v. Doe

Decided May 30, 2025 
Topic: Immigration 
Issue: Whether the secretary of Homeland Security can conduct en masse revocation of parole for approximately half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela without providing individualized, case-by-case consideration for each person.  
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: No 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “The Court allows the Government to do what it wants to do regardless, rendering constraints of law irrelevant and unleashing devastation in the process.” 
—Justice Jackson

Case history 
District of Massachusetts: Blocked the Secretary of Homeland Security from conducting en masse revocations (Judge Talwani) 
First Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Gelpí, Kayatta, and Montecalvo)

Trump v. Wilcox

Decided May 22, 2025 
Topic: Independent agencies 
Issue: Whether the president can terminate members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board without cause 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reason given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.” 
—Justice Kagan

Case history 
District of Columbia: Blocked termination of members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board (Judge Howell and Judge Contreras) 
DC Circuit: Let the decisions stand (Judges Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Childs, Pan, Garcia; Judges Henderson, Katsas, Rao, and Walker dissenting)

Noem v. National TPS Alliance

Decided May 19, 2025 
Topic: Immigration 
Issue: Whether the Department of Homeland Security can terminate a portion of the “Temporary Protected Status” designations relating to Venezuelan nationals 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: No 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Jackson would deny the application.

Commentary about the shadow docket: None

Case history 
Northern District of California: Blocked the Department of Homeland Security from terminating a portion of the program (Judge Chen) 
Ninth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Tashima, Owens, and Desai)

United States v. Shilling

Decided May 6, 2025 
Topic: LGBTQ+ Rights 
Issue: Whether the Department of Defense could terminate transgender service members 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: No 
Concurrences and dissents: Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would deny the application.

Commentary about the shadow docket: None

Case history 
Western District of Washington: Blocked the Department of Defense from terminating transgender service members. (Judge Settle) 
Ninth Circuit: Let order stand (Judges Tashima, Owens, and Desai) 

A.A.R.P. v. Trump

Decided April 19, 2025 (written decision followed on May 16, 2025) 
Topic: Immigration 
Issue: Whether the federal government could remove a group of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: No 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas.

Commentary about the shadow docket: None

Case history 
Northern District of Texas: Denied a request for emergency relief (Judge Hendrix) 
Fifth Circuit: Denied the appeal as premature (Judges Ho and Wilson, Judge Ramirez concurring)

Noem v. Abrego Garcia

Decided April 10, 2025 
Topic: Immigration 
Issue: Whether the federal government was required to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: No 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, issued a statement respecting the Court’s disposition of the application.

Commentary about the shadow docket: None

Case history 
District of Maryland: Ordered the federal government to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Abrego Garcia (Judge Xinis) 
Fourth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Thacker, Wilkinson, and King) 

Office of Personnel Management v. American Federation of Government Employees

Decided April 8, 2025 
Topic: Civil service job protections 
Issue: Whether the federal government was required to reinstate 16,000 employees who had been terminated 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would have denied the application. 

Commentary about the shadow docket: None

Case history 
Northern District of California: Ordered the federal government to reinstate the terminated employees (Judge Alsup) 
Ninth Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Silverman and De Alba; Judge Bade dissenting)

Trump v. J.G.G.

Decided April 7, 2025 
Topic: Immigration 
Issue: Whether the federal government could deport the named plaintiffs under the Alien Enemies Act 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and joined by Justice Barrett joined regarding Parts II and III-B. Justice Jackson dissented.

Commentary about the shadow docket: “I lament that the Court appears to have embarked on a new era of procedural variability, and that it has done so in such a casual, inequitable, and, in my view, inappropriate manner.” 
—Justice Kagan

Case history 
District of Columbia: Blocked the federal government from deporting the named plaintiffs (Judge Boasberg) 
DC Circuit: Let order stand (Judges Henderson and Millett, Judge Walker dissenting) 

Department of Education v. California

Decided April 4, 2025 
Topic: Government spending 
Issue: Whether the federal government must reinstate millions of dollars in federal grants previously appropriated by Congress 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: Yes 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: The chief justice would deny the application. Justice Kagan dissented. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor. 

Commentary about the shadow docket: “The risk of error increases when this Court decides cases — as here — with barebones briefing, no argument, and scarce time for reflection. . . . Rather than make new law on our emergency docket, we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way.” 
—Justice Kagan

Case history 
District of Massachusetts: Required the government to reinstate funding (Judge Joun) 
First Circuit: Let order stand (Judges Gelpí, Kayatta, and Montecalvo)

Bessent v. Dellinger

Decided March 6, 2025 
Topic: Independent agencies 
Issue: Whether the president could remove Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, without cause 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: n/a (first held in abeyance, then denied as moot) 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justices Sotomayor and Jackson would deny the application. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from holding the application in abeyance.

Commentary about the shadow docket: None

Case history 
District of Columbia: Blocked the president from removing Dellinger (Judge Jackson) 
DC Circuit: Let the decision stand (Judges Childs and Pan, Judge Katsas dissenting)

Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition

Decided March 5, 2025 
Topic: Government spending 
Issue: Whether the federal government was required to pay nearly $2 billion to entities for already completed contracted work 
Ruled in favor of the administration at least partially: No 
Majority’s reasoning given: Yes 
Concurrences and dissents: Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

Commentary about the shadow docket: None

Case history 
District of Columbia: Ordered the government to release payments (Judge Ali)