A Democratic bill with 12 Democratic cosponsors · See all 13 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The bill is known as the Shadow Docket Sunlight Act of 2025. It requires the Supreme Court to provide written explanations and disclose how each justice voted when dealing with cases involving preliminary injunctive relief or stays of preliminary injunctive relief. The written explanations must evaluate specific criteria, such as the likelihood of success on the merits and whether the action is in the public interest. Administrative and scheduling orders are excluded from these requirements. The legislation also mandates that the Director of the Federal Judicial Center submit regular reports to Congress assessing compliance with these new rules.
Yes
- Scored +8
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
The bill enhances judicial transparency by requiring the Supreme Court to issue written explanations and disclose justice votes on preliminary injunctions.
- Scored +4
Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts?
The requirement for written explanations and criteria evaluations in emergency relief cases promotes judicial consistency and fairness.
- Scored +3
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill increases congressional oversight by requiring the Federal Judicial Center to submit compliance reports on the Supreme Court.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Under Section 2, adding Sec. 2285(b)(1), the Supreme Court must publish a written explanation of reasons and show how each participating justice voted when issuing orders on preliminary injunctive relief or stays. This holds our officials accountable by letting the public clearly see the reasoning behind these major decisions and how individual justices voted.
-
Under Section 2, adding Sec. 2285(b)(2) and Sec. 2285(b)(3), the Supreme Court must explicitly evaluate specific criteria in their written explanations, such as whether relief is in the public interest and whether applicants or other parties will suffer irreparable harm or injury. This ensures that the Court clearly addresses fairness and the public interest in these specific types of cases.
-
Under Section 3, the Director of the Federal Judicial Center must submit reports to Congress assessing whether the Supreme Court is complying with these transparency requirements. This gives Congress and the people a way to check if the Court is following the rules we set for them.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no explicit negative impacts or burdens for individuals or groups of people identified within the bill.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill enhances judicial transparency by requiring the Supreme Court to issue written explanations and disclose justice votes on preliminary injunctions. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — The requirement for written explanations and criteria evaluations in emergency relief cases promotes judicial consistency and fairness. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill increases congressional oversight by requiring the Federal Judicial Center to submit compliance reports on the Supreme Court.
- 5/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/17/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 12 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
John ReedDemocrat · Rhode Island
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Charles SchumerDemocrat · New York
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island