Watch: The New Supreme Court
By Ken B. Morales · Sep 21, 2026, 4:00 AM CDT
Source image: Bryan Dozier/NurPhoto via AP The Supreme Court continues to make consequential rulings in the shadows. I analyzed tens of thousands of case files from the court’s online archives , parsing through filings to separate simple requests for deadline extensions from challenges to long-established constitutional rights. I discovered that in the term that ended in 2025, the justices issued
Excerpt shown under fair-use limits. Full text remains with the original publisher.
People in this coverage
Explore their history and attributable record. Being mentioned does not imply endorsement.
Layer 1 · Claims & fact checks
AI analysisLayer 3 · Reporting analysis
AI analysisAppeal to AuthorityThe article invokes unnamed experts to lend credibility to the claim of historical uniqueness without identifying who they are or providing their credentials.
Sensational LanguageThe phrasing frames the Court’s actions as secretive and impactful, shaping a dramatic narrative.
Political FramingThe article links the Court’s procedural choices directly to a partisan outcome, suggesting bias without presenting balanced viewpoints.
Use of Direct QuoteIncluding Trump’s emotive quote amplifies the political criticism but is presented without counter‑statement from the Court or other perspectives.
Context
AI analysisMissing context
Comparative statistics on past terms’ shadow‑docket activity, identification and credentials of the quoted experts, the legal reasoning behind each cited decision, and responses from the Court or other neutral legal analysts are absent.
Important context
The article does not provide data on the overall volume of the Court’s docket, historical frequency of shadow‑docket decisions, or the legal standards governing emergency orders, which are needed to assess the significance of the reported surge.
Opinion vs. reporting
AI analysisThe piece blends reporting (court rulings, dates, Trump’s post) with opinionated framing (e.g., labeling the Court’s actions as “consequential rulings in the shadows,” emphasizing “destructive” impact, and highlighting expert opinions without attribution). The author’s interpretive statements about historical uniqueness and political impact are opinion rather than verified reporting.