Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2022
Publication Title
Denver Law Review
Abstract
Inherent to the role of judges is the obligation to explain themselves and to create precedent—which is why the U.S. Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” has recently garnered ample criticism. Unfortunately, other courts share these deficiencies. Oklahoma Supreme Court justices often decline to vote without explanation. They also note their disagreement with some or all of an opinion, but fail to explain why. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals judges decide whether an opinion is unpublished—and thus nonprecedential—without explanation. These practices are “shadow dockets lite” because they are more consistent with the role of judges than the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, but are still problematic and worthy of scrutiny. This Article explains how these practices run afoul of the role of judges and proposes rules to bring these practices in line with the obligation of judges to explain themselves and to create precedent.
Volume
99
First Page
361
Recommended Citation
Hayley R Stillwell, Shadow Dockets Lite, 99 Denv. L. Rev. 361 (2022).