
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


In this episode of ABOTA Speaks, host Jake Courtney sits down with Stephen Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst, Georgetown law professor, and New York Times bestselling author of The Shadow Docket. They explore one of the most consequential yet underreported developments in American law: the Supreme Court's increasing reliance on emergency rulings made without oral argument or full opinions.
Vladeck breaks down the staggering statistics—emergency applications have gone from once every other year to once a week—and explains what this means for judicial transparency, institutional legitimacy, and the Rule of Law. From his unique perspective as both a legal scholar and journalist who translates complex constitutional issues for mainstream audiences, Vladeck offers insights into how the Court's procedures are evolving and why even trial lawyers who follow the Court closely may be missing the bigger institutional story.
Whether you're concerned about preserving judicial independence or simply want to understand how the Supreme Court really works in 2025, this conversation provides essential context for one of the most important shifts in modern American jurisprudence.
By American Board of Trial AdvocatesIn this episode of ABOTA Speaks, host Jake Courtney sits down with Stephen Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst, Georgetown law professor, and New York Times bestselling author of The Shadow Docket. They explore one of the most consequential yet underreported developments in American law: the Supreme Court's increasing reliance on emergency rulings made without oral argument or full opinions.
Vladeck breaks down the staggering statistics—emergency applications have gone from once every other year to once a week—and explains what this means for judicial transparency, institutional legitimacy, and the Rule of Law. From his unique perspective as both a legal scholar and journalist who translates complex constitutional issues for mainstream audiences, Vladeck offers insights into how the Court's procedures are evolving and why even trial lawyers who follow the Court closely may be missing the bigger institutional story.
Whether you're concerned about preserving judicial independence or simply want to understand how the Supreme Court really works in 2025, this conversation provides essential context for one of the most important shifts in modern American jurisprudence.