At 11:34 PM on April 9, 2021, the Supreme Court issued an emergency ruling. California governor Gavin Newsom's bid to enact enhanced COVID restrictions was overturned in a sweeping redefinition of existing law. The shadowy circumstances of this ruling-an unsigned decision made in just a few pages, without a full briefing, and in the middle of the night-are not typical of the Supreme Court. But, as legal scholar and expert Stephen Vladeck shows, they're becoming far too common. The Supreme Court has always had the authority to issue emergency rulings-halting an execution or preventing a law from going into effect until lower courts could rule on its constitutionality-but until recently, it did so only in exceptional circumstances and issued only narrow rulings. Yet in the past decade, the court has expanded its use of the behind-the-scenes "shadow docket" dramatically, handing down major decisions that impact millions of Americans without oral argument or signed opinions, and often without any legal reasoning at all. While typical cases take years, shadow docket cases can take weeks. They typically fly under the public radar, too-until now. In The Shadow Docket, University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck offers a comprehensive analysis of the shadow docket, tracing its emergence in the 1970s in the wake of major court decisions on the death penalty and its recent embrace by a conservative-leaning court that has expanded it to set policy on everything from election law to abortion to immigration. Yet while Republican appointees have been most enthusiastic in their use of the shadow docket, the docket itself is not partisan, and Vladeck makes the case that Americans of all political stripes have a stake in bringing the court's decision-making processes back into the light. Rigorous yet accessible, The Shadow Docket exposes a disturbing institutional crisis that threatens the foundations of our democracy, and calls for sweeping reform.