{"id":568,"date":"2026-08-26T14:38:49","date_gmt":"2026-08-26T14:38:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=568"},"modified":"2026-08-26T14:38:49","modified_gmt":"2026-08-26T14:38:49","slug":"the-orders-docket-why-it-matters-and-this-terms-criminal-law-orders","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=568","title":{"rendered":"The orders docket, why it matters, and this term\u2019s criminal law orders"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The Supreme Court divides its website for official writings by the justices into two main parts: \u201cOpinions of the Court\u201d and \u201cOpinions Relating to Orders.\u201d (The court also maintains another website location that is seldom used today, entitled \u201cIn-Chambers Opinions\u201d \u2013 it contains nothing at all since March 2024.) Contrary to public perception, there is no formal \u201cemergency\u201d or \u201cinterim\u201d docket in the court\u2019s public presentation.<\/p>\n

Read more The many layers of Landor<\/a><\/p>\n

It\u2019s time to acknowledge this \u201cOrders docket\u201d as it exists in full, and why it matters for a complete picture of the Supreme Court\u2019s operations. I think the semiotic labeling controversy about descriptors like \u201cemergency,\u201d \u201cinterim,\u201d and \u201cshadow\u201d docket could be put to rest if commentators simply stuck to the court\u2019s own term: the orders docket.<\/p>\n

After a descriptive account of the orders docket and some thoughts about why it matters, I briefly mention some interesting criminal law nuggets found among the 37 different cases appearing on this. For practitioners who might want a comprehensive list, I did the work and provide it below. (Finally, at the very end, I include a brief correction regarding my July 30th column.)<\/p>\n

What is the orders docket?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Twenty-six the Supreme Court established its first official website. In 2010 (still part of the October Term for 2009 or \u201cOT09\u201d), the court took over administration of its site from the executive branch\u2019s Government Printing Office, and divided its published opinions into \u201cOpinions of the Court\u201d and \u201cOpinions Relating to Orders.\u201d This structure continued through a 2017 reorganization of the website and is today the same as it was in 2010.<\/p>\n

Merits decisions in argued or summary cases are published in \u201cOpinions of the Court.\u201d The orders docket publishes basically everything else, including but not limited to \u201cemergency\u201d or \u201cinterim relief\u201d orders. In fact, by my count, only nine of the 37 separate matters on this term\u2019s orders docket involved emergency stay applications \u2013 and almost half of those (four) addressed emergency stays of executions in death penalty cases, not the high publicity \u201cshadow docket\u201d matters that attracted the most media attention.<\/p>\n

Rather, the bulk of the \u201cOrders\u201d part of the court\u2019s website publishes opinions written by individual justices to explain why they dissent (or agree with) orders denying review in a case by the full court. Thus, opinions in 28 of the 37 matters on this term\u2019s orders docket were \u201cdissents from denial\u201d (or \u201cstatements regarding\u201d denial) of certiorari petitions. (In a death penalty case a justice will often the denial of review and denial of a stay of execution in a single opinion.) And it is in the dissents-from-denial opinions on the orders docket that criminal law issues (discussed below) are often addressed (23 of the 37 matters this term).<\/p>\n

Opinions published on the orders docket differ significantly from those found on the merits (\u201cOpinions\u201d) docket. They are issued without oral argument or full briefing on the merits, and usually on a faster time frame than full merits opinions. They usually represent individual justices\u2019 views rather than that of a majority of the court. And they are said to carry less precedential weight than full merits opinions (although that distinction appears to have unofficially broken down recently). Nevertheless, opinions on the orders docket often express firm views by the writing justice(s) about significant legal questions.<\/p>\n

One final point readers should note: the court denies the vast majority of requests from litigants without any opinion at all by any justice \u2013 for example, the recent denial of a petition for rehearing filed by President Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case. Such silent denials are not found on the orders docket, which publishes only written opinions. Instead, these summary denials can be found by parsing the dozens of weekly \u201cOrders\u201d lists that the court files after its internal conferences (and, to make things even more confusing, are published on an entirely different part of the court\u2019s website).<\/p>\n

Why the orders docket matters<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have written previously that a full picture of what the justices do in a term requires attention to the orders docket as well as the justices\u2019 merits decisions. Particularly important are opinions explaining why a justice or justices dissent from an order of the majority denying a petition for review (a \u201cdissent from denial\u201d of certiorari is insider shorthand). For the October Term 2025 \u2013 which continues until Oct. 5, 2026 \u2013 as noted, there have been 37 separate matters listed with opinions on the \u201cRelating to Orders\u201d docket. Of these, 22 were dissents from denial of certiorari, and another seven were \u201cstatements\u201d regarding or concurring in such denials. (For technical purists, one matter, , involved one state suing others, so the dissent was from a denial of leave to file a complaint.)<\/p>\n

Read more Alcohol at the Supreme Court<\/a><\/p>\n

Adam Feldman and other expert court watchers have long examined dissents from denial as a way of understanding, and presaging, what issues the full court may soon choose to examine. When the full court has denied permission to have a case reviewed, an individual justice may publish a dissent to signal to court observers (including experienced potential Supreme Court petitioners) legal issues one or more justices think are worthy for future review. Such dissents not infrequently (but also ) blossom into a later merits review of the briefly described legal question. For example, it is not coincidental that Justice Neil Gorsuch\u2019s 10-page dissent from denial of certiorari in in 2022 identified the same legal question \u2013 does the Constitution require that serious criminal cases be tried by a jury of 12? \u2013 that will be given full merits review in Kian v. Florida<\/em> this coming term. The motivation is sometimes explicit: as Gorsuch wrote in from denial this term, \u201cI can only hope we will take up another case like [t]his soon.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some justices publish repeatedly on the orders docket, in a sense patrolling the borders of the court\u2019s work. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was by far the busiest this term, publishing in 15 different cases; on the other end of the wild card court, Justice Samuel Alito published in five and Thomas in four. Other justices published not at all: Roberts was consistent with his \u201cno dissents\u201d approach this term, as was Barrett with her moderating and merits-focused approach to the court\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

Finally, a practice of issuing such official yet individual opinions allows the justices some freedom to express themselves and can give insights into their style and temperament. For example, when the full court a stay of execution regarding an intellectually disabled person (Edward Lee Busby), Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson gave full vent to her frustration: \u201cIn capital cases, we rarely intervene to preserve life. I cannot understand the Court\u2019s rush to extinguish it.\u201d (Busby was executed that same night.) Meanwhile, when Jackson published a dissent from the court\u2019s order speedily issuing the judgment in the controversial Callais<\/em> voting rights case, Alito his unrestrained reaction: \u201cbaseless and insulting,\u201d \u201cutterly irresponsible.\u201d Even as the chief justice has said recently that \u201cwe are not as much at each other\u2019s throats as you might think,\u201d individual opinions published on the orders docket can sometimes provide insights otherwise.<\/p>\n

Criminal law nuggets from the October 2025 Term orders docket<\/strong><\/p>\n

As noted above, at least 23 of the 37 cases listed on the court\u2019s merits docket involved criminal law issues. Eighteen were straight dissents from denial of certiorari; the rest were \u201cstatements\u201d explaining disagreement on the merits but acquiescing in the denial of review for other reasons. Alito and Sotomayor appear to pay the most attention to criminal law issues, accounting for opinions in 18 of these matters. Their opinions tend to pull in opposite directions, unsurprising perhaps in light of their decidedly different prior careers and political views. (Alito was a career federal prosecutor; Sotomayor, while also serving as a stateside prosecutor for a few years, was committed to various civil rights organizations.) Their orders opinions tend to \u201cpatrol\u201d the court\u2019s criminal law denial decisions, urging further review in similarly opposite directions. In addition, seven matters involved stays of execution in death penalty cases; Sotomayor wrote in all but one of those.<\/p>\n

Space does not permit review of every matter (but for practitioners interested in a complete picture, I provide short descriptions for all the criminal law orders opinions below). Here are few notable ones:<\/p>\n