Ranking Member Raskin Introduces Trio of Reforms to End Supreme Court Shadow Docket Secrecy, Bolster Accountability
Bills Would Require Explanations for Emergency Rulings, Change How Supreme Court Cases Are Selected, and Clarify Where Claims Against the Government Can Be Heard
Washington, D.C. (May 21, 2026)—Today, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced a trio of bills aimed at confronting the Supreme Court’s growing use of unexplained “shadow docket” orders, increasing transparency in how cases are selected for review, and clarifying federal court jurisdiction in monetary claims against the United States.
The package includes the Supreme Court Honesty and Disclosure of Orders and Writs Act or the SHADOW Act; the Supreme Court Certiorari Oversight and Transparency Standards Act or the SCCOTUS Act; and the Federal Funding Protection Act.
“The Supreme Court is issuing emergency rulings with life-altering consequences for millions of people often with no explanation at all. In case after case, authoritative lower court opinions are being reversed without analysis in the dark of the shadow docket while the public is left to guess at the reasoning. And the Court’s decisions about its case docket take place entirely behind closed doors with no accountability or record. That is not how justice in a constitutional democracy should work.
“This package of legislative reforms brings sunlight to all of it—the shadow docket, the certiorari process, and the procedural chaos that can block people from ever having their claims heard. Courts don’t lose authority when they explain themselves—that’s where their legitimacy comes from,” said Ranking Member Raskin.
The SHADOW Act requires the Supreme Court to explain its emergency decisions—often issued without explanation—within seven days. The Court would have to state why it ruled the way it did, what factors it considered, and what the decision does. It also makes clear that “irreparable harm” cannot be assumed just because a lower court blocked a government policy; the party asking for emergency relief must show a specific, immediate harm.
The SCCOTUS Act moves the initial step of Supreme Court case selection to a rotating panel of randomly selected federal appeals court judges. The panel would follow the Court’s existing standards for taking cases, require at least four votes to grant review, and issue written explanations for its decisions.
The Federal Funding Protection Act clarifies that federal district courts can hear claims for money damages against the government when those claims are part of a larger case already properly before the court, reducing confusion over where those cases should be heard. In National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, the Supreme Court stayed a district judge’s order reinstating hundreds of terminated grants, ruling on the Shadow Docket that questions involving grants could only be heard in the Court of Federal Claims. This prevented crucial emergency relief, fractured plaintiff’s claims against the government, and ultimately allowed the Trump Administration to quickly terminate crucial research programs.
The legislative package comes amid a wave of high-profile Supreme Court emergency rulings issued through the Court’s so-called “shadow docket,” where major decisions affecting immigration enforcement, federal funding, and election rules have been handed down without full briefing or clear explanation.
Click here to read the SHADOW Act bill text.
Click here to read the SCCOTUS ACT bill text.
Click here to read the Federal Funding Protection Act bill text.
###