In a recent New York Times essay, we wrote about how there are a number of rarely talked about cases that reach the Supreme Court each year and comprise what we call the “self-referential docket.”

These are proceedings with direct parallels to how the justices act as stewards of their institution — such as ones holding that anti-protest buffer zones are unconstitutional, even as the justices maintain such a zone in front of their own building — and instead of changing their practices in light of these cases, the jurists carry on as before, maintaining their own antiquated rules when it comes to openness and accountability.

Given space constraints, we were only able to mention a handful of these cases in the Times piece, yet many others are as important and give additional insight into the workings of the court.

For a discussion of these cases, read this essay.