Critics of emergency court rulings overlook forum-shopping tactics

The opinion piece argues that liberal objections to the Supreme Court's emergency docket ignore how litigants strategically choose favorable courts. It highlights Judge Talwani's case as an example of forum shopping, where parties seek venues likely to rule in their favor. The author contends that such practices undermine the legitimacy of complaints about the shadow docket.

This piece enters the ongoing debate over the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, often called the “shadow docket,” where rulings are issued without full briefing or oral argument. Critics on the left have frequently condemned these orders as opaque and rushed. The author counters that such criticism ignores a key driver: litigants themselves engage in forum shopping, filing cases in districts or circuits likely to produce favorable emergency rulings. Judge Talwani’s case is cited as an illustration, though the specifics are not detailed here. The argument reframes the controversy as a strategic game, suggesting that complaints about process lose force when both sides exploit venue advantages.