we are talking with university of texas law professor steve vladeck. we are going to go to your phone calls right now. as a reminder, (202) 748-8000 free democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first caller is mark in asheville, north carolina on the independent line. what is your question or comment? caller: i generally agree with professor vladeck's concern about the shadow docket. the example of the antiabortion drug decision in texas is actually a different kind of problem and i do not think the supreme court needed to articulate that concern. here we have another problem in the judicial system, which is one justice in one court in amarillo, texas takes a nontraditional view of saying that the fda, a federal agency, did not have the basis for proving the drug and had the supreme court not stated that, that would have been the law across the country, which is a far bigger problem. i realize that exception to the general concerns that you voiced about the shadow docket. i just wanted to point out i think that what th

host: we are talking this morning with the university of texas law professor steve vladeck about hisk. i want to go ahead and give the numbers out one more time, because we want you to start calling in with your comment about the supreme court. if you read the shadow docket or your questions for professor vladeck, that number is (202) 748-8000 if you are a democrat. if you are a republican that number is (202) 748-8001. if you are an independent, (202) 748-8002. if you would like to text that question or comment, the number is (202) 748-8003. make sure you include your name and phone number. so, steve, you have been tracking the increase of shadow docket decisions since 2017. you have given us a recent example. can you give us some more examples of cases that really stand out as a problematic use of these more private, secretive ways of making decisions? guest: 2017 is an infection point, not because the supreme court had never had emergencies before. as long as there has been a supreme court, there has been a need for some kind of expeditious review in a small set of cases. what rea

joining us now is the university of texas law professor, steve vladeck, the author of the new book "shadowt" how the supreme court uses stealth rulings to amass power and undermine the republic. thanks for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> what did i say wrong? >> nothing. no. i think the reality is that over the last five or six years, we've seen the supreme court use what used to be rare orders that we actually saw in the 1980s and 1990s in the death penalty context where they were enormously important to the state and prisoner but didn't tend to have broader implications on state wide or federal policies. >> and you can understand why they would be so time sensitive. the execution is scheduled for x and you must move before x. >> versus 2015, 2016, 2017, now if it is a big policy issue, whether the student loan program or covid vaccine mandates, the supreme court is handling so many of these through these emergency applications and what is really most hard to see until you put them all together is the neutral legal principles that people might try to say explain these rulings fall

on sunday, steve vladeck tweeted, 54 years ago today, may 14th, 1969, was the last day on which a majoritystices had been appointed by democratic president. the next 11 appointments were by republican presidents. 11 in a row. 16 of the last 21 appointments to the supreme court have been by republican presidents. the republican court packing tonight begin with donald trump and mitch mcconnell, but took it to a new level. now most republican members of the mcconnell senate have effectively taken position that no democratic presidents should ever be allowed to appoint a supreme court justice. joining us now is steven lad, a law professor at the university of texas in austin, the author of the new book, the shadow docket. how the supreme court uses stealth rulings to amass power and undermine the republic. professor, thank you very much for joining us tonight. i am wondering how the development of the shadow docket tracks with the republican takeover of the supreme court. >> lawrence, it's great to be with you. i actually think that it's an iterative process, where it was not because of the ri

and steve vladeck, professor at the university of texas school of law and an expert on federal courtsw book on the supreme court is "the shadow docket." thank you both for being with us. remind us why this case is so significant, said to be the most consequential since the overturning of roe. sarah: in the last number of years the number of women who rely on medication abortion pills has grown. to more than 50%. . so access to this regimen is incredibly important for women around the country. when the judge issued his decision in texas, it essentially said mifepristone would have to come off the market. that would affect of course women who want to access abortion medication to terminate a pregnancy. it is also used a lot in early miscarriage management treatment. that is something that physicians around the country regularly turn to. geoff: the new orleans-based fifth circuit is consided one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country. they have routinely ruled against the dighton doj. what lines of inquiry did the judges explore today and what can you glean from it? ste

steve vladeck thank you. >> thank you so much. >> we will be right back!ilable without a prescription. astepro is the first and only 24-hour steroid-free spray. while flonase takes hours, astepro starts working in 30 minutes. so you can [ spray, spray ] astepro and go. what do we always say, son? liberty mutual customizes your car insurance... so you only pay for what you need. that's my boy. ♪ stay off the freeways! we know patients are more than their disease. that's why, at novo nordisk, we've spent a hundred years developing treatments to help unlock humanity's full potential. these are the greats: people living with, thriving with — not held back by — disease. they motivate us to fight diabetes and obesity, rare diseases and cardiovascular conditions, for generations to come. so, everyone can meet their moment. because your disease doesn't define you. so, what will? novo nordisk. driving change. trying to control my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ ♪ enough was enough. i talked to an asthma specialist and found out my severe asthma is driven by eosi

we are talking with university of texas law professor steve vladeck. your phone calls right now. as a reminder, (202) 748-8000 free democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. our first caller is mark in asheville, north carolina on the independent line. what is your question or comment? caller: i generally agree with professor vladeck's concern about the shadow docket. the example of the antiabortion drug decision in texas is actually a different kind of problem and i do not think the supreme court needed to articulate that concern. here we have another problem in the judicial system, which is one justice in one court in amarillo, texas takes a nontraditional view of saying that the fda, a federal agency, did not have the basis for proving the drug and had the supreme court not stated that, that would have been the law across the country, which is a far bigger problem. i realize that exception to the general concerns that you voiced about the shadow docket. i just wanted to point out i think that what the supreme court did, w