Leaked 2016 Memos Expose Supreme Court Debate Over Blocking Obama Climate Rule
Cover image from reason.com, which was analyzed for this article
New revelations on the Supreme Court's use of shadow papers and secret memos highlight a risky shift in operations, with key excerpts sparking transparency concerns. Takeaways from these documents reveal internal processes amid ongoing cases. Historical rulings against informal censorship are cited in current debates.
PoliticalOS
Saturday, April 18, 2026 — Politics
Leaked 2016 memos show the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay of Obama's Clean Power Plan after abbreviated internal debate, an action later upheld on the merits in 2022 but criticized for lacking public reasoning. The episode intensified debate over the shadow docket's growth and secrecy, even as the same court has invoked precedents like Bantam Books v. Sullivan to limit informal government pressure on speech in other contexts. Readers should recognize that emergency procedures predated 2016, have been used by justices appointed by both parties, and reflect ongoing tension between timely intervention and transparent deliberation.
What outlets missed
Most coverage omitted that shadow-docket-style emergency stays existed well before 2016, including in voting rights cases from 2006, framing the Clean Power Plan episode as invention rather than escalation. The 2022 Supreme Court decision striking down the Clean Power Plan on major-questions grounds, which aligned with arguments in the Roberts and Alito memos, received little emphasis despite confirming the challengers' core claims about EPA authority. Coverage also underplayed bipartisan use of emergency docket procedures in the Trump, Biden and later administrations, including stays on immigration and vaccine mandates. On the Bantam Books precedent, nuance around modern jawboning cases was often lost; several cited examples, such as Murthy v. Missouri, ended in standing dismissals rather than definitive constitutional condemnations. Finally, concrete economic claims by the 27 challenging states and coal companies regarding plant closures and compliance costs were rarely detailed, though they were central to the stay requests.
You've seen the spin. Now read what happened.
The unbiased version strips away everything the other four added: the framing, the omissions, the selective emphasis. Just what happened.
Read all five, free for 7 days$4.99/mo after trial. Cancel anytime.