The Supreme Court has been grilled by a political analyst who believes some members have found a way to hide their actions from the public.
The Supreme Court has employed a secretive practice known as the "shadow docket" to issue significant rulings. This mechanism allows the court to release orders and decisions with minimal explanation or transparency, often favoring religion and Donald Trump while avoiding public accountability.
Salon columnist Amanda Marcotte suggested that some members of the Supreme Court were avoiding debate and public scrutiny on issues by using the "shadow docket" and that doing so is cowardly.
She wrote, "There are many theories swirling around for why they have increasingly chosen to abandon their basic duty to legal transparency. And the likeliest one is also the simplest: They’re cowards.
"No matter how poorly they might be constructed, majority opinions have the force of law. Publishing them means that other people can read and scrutinize them, and mock the justices when they write illogical, unsupported, or embarrassing opinions.
"Rather than endure the shame of public scorn — which would still make no material difference to their levels of power — the justices would rather hide their views.
"Though they may occupy the highest spot on the judicial bench, the Court’s conservative members have revealed that, with these gutless actions, they are not much different than the rest of MAGA."
Legal experts had previously flagged the so-called "shadow docket" as a dishonest way of passing rulings.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has defended the court’s use of the shadow docket, but instead has endorsed the term “interim docket,” citing the temporary nature of rulings decided using the tactic.
Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck said, "When you’re going to have rulings producing these massive and permanent effects, it seems kind of disingenuous to label them as interim."