WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 8991

SHADOW Act

119th Congress Introduced by Jamie Raskin

The SHADOW Act requires the Supreme Court and justices to publish on-record, explicit reasons for stays and writs, increasing transparency of emergency relief decisions.

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 8991

Summary of HR 8991 (SHADOW Act)

Purpose and intent

  • Introduces a congressional bill titled the Supreme Court Honesty and Disclosure of Orders and Writs Act (SHADOW Act).
  • The core aim is to mandate explicit, on-record rationales for stays pending appeal and for certain extraordinary writs issued by the Supreme Court or its justices, enhancing transparency around emergency relief decisions and preserving the public record of judicial justification.

Key provisions and changes

1) Amendments to stays pending appeal (28 U.S.C. § 2101(f))
- The bill alters the framework for when the Supreme Court or a justice can grant or deny a stay pending appeal.
- New factors to be considered and disclosed:
- (A) Require a showing of specific, concrete, irreparable injury that is distinct from and greater than any harm caused by the stay itself.
- (B) Require that the stay decision not involve the court’s analysis of the ultimate merits of the case or likelihood of prevailing.
- (C) Limit the precedential effect of a stay to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties.
- Additional record-keeping and transparency:
- The Supreme Court or a justice must set forth on the record the basis for the stay decision, including:
- (i) whether, absent relief, the applicant would suffer irreparable injury described in (A);
- (ii) whether the relief would substantially injure any other party;
- (iii) whether the decision to issue or deny the stay serves the public interest.
- These bases must be published on the Supreme Court docket at the time of issuance or denial.
- If immediate action is needed to prevent imminent or irreparable harm, the basis must be published no later than 7 days after the stay is issued or denied.

  • Definitions:
    • The term “stay” includes orders granting, denying, suspending, modifying, or preserving the effect of a lower court’s injunctive relief.

2) Conforming amendment to the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651)
- Adds a new subsection clarifying when the Supreme Court or a justice may issue a writ enjoining conduct.
- Requirements:
- Writs may be issued only if there is a need to protect an indisputably clear legal right at issue and due to critical, exigent circumstances.
- The Court must set forth on the record the reasons for the writ determination, including identifying the legal right and why it is indisputably clear.
- Reasons must be published on the public docket at the time the writ is granted or denied.
- As with stays, this publishing requirement can be bypassed if immediate action is necessary to prevent imminent or irreparable harm, in which case the basis must be published within 7 days.

Who/what is affected

  • The Supreme Court and individual Supreme Court justices are directly affected, as the bill imposes new requirements for articulating and publishing the rationale behind stays and extraordinary writs.
  • Litigants before the Supreme Court seeking stays or writs may see more explicit criteria and publicly accessible explanations for decisions.
  • The public and legal community gain enhanced transparency around emergency relief actions, including potential shifts in the precedential impact of stays.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • If enacted, courts would be required to:
    • Document and publish the specific factors supporting a stay or writ decision on the public docket.
    • Apply the specified factors in determining irreparable injury, impact on other parties, and public interest.
    • Publish the reasoning for stay or writ decisions contemporaneously (or within 7 days if urgency prevents immediate publication).
  • The bill contains a defined delay mechanism only in the context of urgent action (7-day publication window).

Practical implications

  • Increased transparency and accountability for emergency relief decisions in the highest court.
  • Potentially more rigorous articulation of harm, impact on parties, and public interest in stay and writ determinations.
  • The explicit limits on precedential effect aim to prevent broad legal implications from a single stay, focusing on the dispute at hand.
  • The bill does not alter substantive standards for resolving underlying merits; it focuses on the decision-making process and record-keeping.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.