Joyce Alene: 1/The NYT is releasing internal SCOTUS documents re: 2016 --- The Shadow Papers

[Passages]

Link to tweet

The Inside Story of Five Days That Remade the Supreme Court

Secret memos obtained by The New York Times illuminate the origins of the court’s now-routine “shadow docket” rulings on presidential power.
By Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak

Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak’s work sheds light on the Supreme Court. They welcome tips at nytimes.com/tips.

April 18, 2026
Just after 6 p.m. on a February evening in 2016, the Supreme Court issued a cryptic, one paragraph ruling that sent both climate policy and the court itself spinning in new directions.

For two centuries, the court had generally handled major cases at a stately pace that encouraged care and deliberation, relying on written briefs, oral arguments and in-person discussions. The justices composed detailed opinions that explained their thinking to the public and rendered judgment only after other courts had weighed in.

But this time, the justices were sprinting to block a major presidential initiative. By a 5-to-4 vote along partisan lines, the order halted President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, his signature environmental policy. They acted before any other court had addressed the plan’s lawfulness. The decision consisted of only legal boilerplate, without a word of reasoning.

At the time, the ruling seemed like a curious one-off. But that single paragraph turned out to be a sharp and lasting break. That night marks the birth, many legal experts believe, of the court’s modern “shadow docket,” the secretive track that the Supreme Court has since used to make many major decisions, including granting President Trump more than 20 key victories on issues from immigration to agency power.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/18/us/politics/supreme-court-shadow-docket.html?unlocked_article_code=1.b1A.laJB.4SzT3P7L6E52&smid=nytcore-ios-share

Overwhelming.

[58Sunliner]

1. Kick and rec!

[justaprogressive]

2. Fascisti on the Court!

evil plants against the Republic!

[dalton99a]

3. The Roberts court made Trump 2.0 possible.

[Passages]

4. We have the receipts, yes.

[intheflow]

5. Bluesky link, for those who don't want to drive traffic to X:

1/The NYT is releasing internal SCOTUS documents re: 2016 creation of the modern “Shadow Docket” noting Justice Roberts & “other conservative justices have repeatedly empowered [Trump] through their shadow docket rulings. www.nytimes.com/2026/04/18/u...

— Joyce White Vance (@joycewhitevance.bsky.social) 2026-04-18T13:27:29.119Z

[Passages]

6. Thank you. Every Democrat in office is on Twitter, and I post from it in the hopes we

do not allow Musk & company a vacuum for their propaganda.

[ultralite001]

8. Another avenue to view Joyce Vance's posts on "X"...

https://xcancel.com/joycewhitevance

[MontanaMama]

7. Kicking.

SCOTUS is actively and intentionally moving us into fascism. If Thomas and or Alito retire and the project 2025 guys choose their replacements, we’re going to see rights for everyone other than cis white men evaporate for decades.

[NBachers]

9. The article says Robert's AND Obama both botched his inauguration swearing-in. Not the way I remember it.

[ShazzieB]

10. I had completely forgotten about that!

I had to google to refresh my memory and found an article that explains it much better:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Four years ago, John Roberts blew it. In his debut at swearing in the next president, the Supreme Court chief justice stumbled over the oath at Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony.

That led Obama to mix his words up too and the historic swearing-in of the first African-American president briefly became an awkward muddle.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/after-fumbled-oath-roberts-and-obama-leave-little-to-chance-idUSBRE90H16M/

So it was Roberts who messed up first, and his flub threw Obama off. The Time account is misleading. I also don't care fot the way the Times article appears to link Roberts' fumble to Obama voting against his confirmation:

Mr. Obama had been one of just 22 senators to vote against Chief Justice Roberts’s confirmation in 2005, saying that the nominee had “far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.” Four years later, the two men managed to botch the simple task of reciting the presidential oath at Mr. Obama’s first inauguration.

The implication is very indirect, but why even mention how Obama voted on Roberts being confirmed unless you want to imply .... something? It's a very strange paragraph all the way around, imo.