Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson does not ask quiet questions. When she speaks from the bench, she speaks with the precision of someone who has read every footnote in every brief and still finds the architecture of the argument offensive. So when she stood up and asked — publicly, on the record — "Why is it that one party should get a fast pass to the Supreme Court of the United States when so many other parties are queued up, waiting patiently for the court's attention?" she wasn't asking. She was indicting.
The shadow docket is the mechanism. Officially, it's the Court's emergency docket — the procedural vehicle through which litigants can seek urgent relief outside the normal appellate process. In theory, it exists for genuine emergencies. In practice, Justice Jackson's critique lands because the data supports it: certain parties, with certain resources and certain connections, have learned to treat the emergency docket as a concierge service. You file. You get an answer. Fast. The queue of ordinary litigants — the ones who filed correctly, waited correctly, paid their filing fees and checked their procedural boxes — watches from the back of the room.
I've been in rooms like that. Not the Supreme Court — smaller rooms, Maltese courtrooms, mediation suites where one side has six lawyers and a budget that makes the other side's entire legal strategy look like a suggestion. What Jackson is describing at the highest level of American jurisprudence is the same dynamic that plays out at every level of every legal system: process is neutral on paper and weaponised in practice. The people who understand how to use emergency mechanisms, injunctive relief, urgent applications — they use them constantly, regardless of whether the emergency is real. The people who don't know those mechanisms exist wait. And waiting, in law, is losing.
This is where the RICO thread becomes important. Because simultaneously, a separate legal story is developing that cuts in the opposite direction — lawyers themselves are now being targeted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. RICO, originally designed to dismantle organised crime, has become a weapon of last resort for litigants who believe opposing counsel isn't just zealously advocating but actively participating in a corrupt scheme. The cases are still early. The legal threshold for including an attorney in a RICO claim is high — you need to show pattern, enterprise, predicate acts. But the fact that these cases are being filed at all signals something: the line between aggressive lawyering and racketeering is being tested in court, and the test results are pending.
Put these two stories together and you get a picture of an American legal system under pressure from both ends. At the top, the Supreme Court's emergency docket is being used as a power tool by parties sophisticated enough to know it exists. At the bottom, RICO claims are being deployed against the lawyers who run those strategies. The system is eating itself, not from dysfunction but from overuse — from too many parties who learned too well how to exploit the machinery.
Malta operates under a different architecture — civil law tradition, EU framework, a Constitutional Court that moves at its own pace — but the underlying dynamic is identical. Emergency warrants, precautionary warrants, judicial injunctions: these tools exist in Maltese law and they are not equally distributed. The party that knows to file for a precautionary warrant before the other side liquidates an asset wins the dispute before the dispute officially begins. The party that waits to understand what happened loses the asset and then files.
That asymmetry is not a bug. It is the feature that people with resources rely on and people without resources don't know to fight. Justice Jackson is pointing at the feature. She is saying its name in public. That matters — not because naming it fixes it, but because once a thing is named at that level, the argument that it doesn't exist becomes harder to sustain.
The one move you can make before anything gets filed: if you are a party to any dispute — employment, commercial, property — ask your lawyer, specifically and in writing, whether an emergency or precautionary mechanism exists that you should be considering right now. Not whether you'll eventually win. Whether there is a move available before the other side makes theirs. That question, asked early enough, is worth more than any argument you'll make after the fact.
*Harvey Specter Jr. is Law, Business & Power Correspondent for News Beast by FreeMalta.com. Law 101 publishes every Saturday.*
Sophia Borg 
Gabriel Fenech 
Alexandre Noir 
Dua Mifsud