Key Takeaways:

• The Supreme Court has used the shadow docket to back many of Trump’s executive orders.
• Legal expert Erin M. Carr calls this move “sanewashing” by the Roberts Court.
• Through sanewashing, shaky legal claims get the court’s stamp of approval.
• This trend risks reducing due process, political checks, and civil rights.
• Critics warn it shifts power toward the president and away from democratic safeguards

How Sanewashing Changed the Shadow Docket

After the Supreme Court gave near-total immunity to the president, actions moved fast. Donald Trump signed executive orders at a record pace. Then the conservative-leaning court largely approved them. It did so through the little-known “shadow docket.” According to Erin M. Carr in the New Republic, the court’s moves amount to “sanewashing.” This term shows how the highest court makes questionable orders look sound.

What Exactly Is Sanewashing?

Sanewashing describes how the media softens or cleans up raw statements. It turns them into something more acceptable. Carr argues the Supreme Court does the same. It legitimizes orders that are legally weak. In her view, the court’s seal makes them appear reasonable. In truth, they often stretch constitutional limits.

Why the Court Leans into Sanewashing

First, the Roberts Court has long shown a bias toward certain power centers. Over the past two decades, it has chipped away at due process rights. Moreover, it has limited civil liberties. At the same time, it has expanded powers for corporations, gun owners, and states with strong conservative districts. Carr sees this as consistent judicial behavior. However, the shadow docket marks a new twist.

The Rise of the Shadow Docket

Usually, the Supreme Court reviews cases after lower courts fully rule. It hears full arguments on the main docket. But the shadow docket lets justices act quickly on requests. These requests often ask to pause or speed up decisions in lower courts. Such moves used to be rare. Now, they are routine. Importantly, most recent shadow decisions favor the Trump administration. Critics say the court treats pressing cases from Trump as true emergencies. In so doing, it grants relief with little explanation.

Sanewashing at Work in the Shadow Docket

Erin Carr suggests the court’s pattern highlights sanewashing in action. On the shadow docket, judges jump in to help the president. They call the matter urgent. Yet many lower courts have blocked his orders. For example, they might find a rule exceeds the president’s authority. Then the Supreme Court swoops in. It claims the lower court’s slowdown would disrupt government. In reality, the court saves the order from legal scrutiny. Consequently, a questionable policy gets a quick lifeline. Overall, the court’s actions clean up the messy legal issues. Thus, it sanewashes the law.

Real-World Effects of Judicial Sanewashing

The stakes could not be higher. For decades, due process has guarded citizens from government overreach. However, when the court uses sanewashing, it erodes those protections. Also, political accountability weakens. If the court routinely shields the president, voters lose a check on power. Meanwhile, civil rights face new challenges. Past rulings have hurt marginalized groups in the name of states’ rights or other doctrines. Through sanewashing, the court may deepen these impacts. In fact, Carr warns that this trend threatens democratic norms.

Who Benefits from Sanewashing?

At its core, sanewashing favors a few groups. First, the president gains broad latitude. He can issue radical orders, knowing the court will likely back him. Next, large corporations get stable policies that benefit them. Gun rights advocates see a friend in the court’s favoring of lax regulations. Christian conservatives also gain support for certain policies. Finally, state officials from gerrymandered districts find their power bolstered. All these winners owe much to the court’s practice of cleaning up legal flaws.

A Longer History of Judicial Sanewashing

Carr does not view sanewashing as new. Instead, she traces it back to the early years of Chief Justice Roberts’s tenure. Multiple decisions in civil rights, voting, and administrative law show the trend. For example, cases on voting rights often strip individuals of legal tools to challenge discrimination. Decisions on agencies have limited their power to enforce regulations. In each case, the court’s reasoning presents a flawed view of law as solid and clear. Yet in reality, many of those rulings rest on shaky interpretations.

Why the Court Chooses the Shadow Docket Now

Time has become a major factor. High-profile fights over immigration, health rules, and environmental policies unfold rapidly. Lower courts sometimes take months to rule. The Supreme Court may see that as too slow. Hence, it uses the shadow docket to speed things up. Critics respond that quick decisions lack transparency and full debate. They also point out that informal procedures may violate norms of fairness. Yet the court shows little sign of slowing down.

The Threat to Democratic Systems

When a court cleans up and approves contested policies, it gains more power. Citizens may feel laws reflect the court’s views rather than the people’s will. Moreover, if the court keeps stepping in to favor one branch, the balance of power shifts. This change risks creating an unchecked presidency. For Erin Carr, that outcome casts a long shadow. She argues it could erode the shared sense of reality that holds democracy together.

Can Sanewashing Be Checked?

Some scholars and activists call for reforms. They suggest clearer rules on the shadow docket. For example, justices could issue brief public reasons each time. Others want stricter limits on emergency appeals. Similarly, Congress could adjust jurisdiction rules to curb hasty Supreme Court actions. However, such changes require political will. Given current polarization, passing reforms may prove difficult.

What Comes Next?

As the next term begins, many expect more cases on the shadow docket. Issues like immigration bans, vaccine rules, and climate actions all may come up. Observers will watch for signs of continued sanewashing. At the same time, lower courts may push back more strongly. Meanwhile, public opinion could sway debates over court reform. Ultimately, the fight over due process and accountability will define this era.

Wrapping Up

In the end, Erin Carr’s concept of sanewashing casts a new light on the Supreme Court’s recent work. By using the shadow docket, the court cleans up and approves many of the president’s orders. This pattern risks undercutting basic legal safeguards. It also threatens democratic checks and balances. Therefore, citizens and lawmakers alike face a critical choice: accept the court’s broad power or push for reforms that restore a fair legal process.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is sanewashing in the legal context

Sanewashing refers to how courts legitimize weak legal arguments. It makes them appear sound. In this case, the term shows how the Supreme Court smooths over shaky orders.

How does the shadow docket differ from the main docket

The shadow docket allows quick rulings on emergency appeals. It lacks full briefing and oral argument. The main docket involves detailed hearings and written opinions.

Why do critics worry about judicial sanewashing

They fear it undermines due process and civil rights. It also tips the balance of power toward the president. As a result, democratic checks weaken.

Can Congress limit the court’s use of the shadow docket

Yes. Lawmakers could set stricter rules for emergency appeals. They could demand public explanations for each decision. However, passing such reforms requires broad political support.