The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. July 22, 2019.

When the U.S. Supreme Court closed out its term earlier this month, many liberals breathed a sigh of relief. The conservative majority, in its first full term featuring two appointees of President Donald Trump, delivered wins to both sides, raising speculation that the historically conservative Chief Justice John Roberts had shifted to the center.

But in the days since its last full opinion was released, the court has fast-tracked the first federal executions in 17 years and facilitated the disenfranchisement of nearly a million people in Florida. These decisions differ markedly from the majority of cases decided by the court: the capital case was decided without any justice identified as the author, and the Florida case came and went without any justice in the majority offering a reason for denying review.

Under the cover of darkness, the chief justice is again steering the court hard to the right.

In most cases that the Supreme Court weighs in on, the justices hear oral arguments, deliberate and write a decision, with the votes of the justices and the author of the opinion publicly disclosed. In the death penalty case, the justices handed down an unsigned, or per curiam, majority decision. But for the fact that the four liberal justices wrote dissenting opinions, we would have no insight into the decision-making of the highest court in the land.

Per curiam opinions do not disclose the author or the votes of the justices. They have historically been used as a method of releasing uncontroversial decisions when the court is largely in agreement. It is unseemly, then, that the justices would write a per curiam opinion in a case with a 5-4 vote and bitter objections from the minority. Did the court go that route so the five "unnamed" conservatives could better hide their shame for reinstating the federal death penalty so swiftly? Of course, any attempt to conceal the partisan divide was undone by the liberal justices' decision to sign dissenting opinions, unmasking the conservative majority.

The same thing happened in a controversial voting rights case in April, when the justices handed down a decision limiting vote-by-mail in Wisconsin just one day before the primary was to take place. The decision was per curiam, with no author listed, but the four liberal justices once again signed on to a blistering dissent, denouncing the majority for disenfranchising voters amid a global pandemic.

Enforcing controversial policies using anonymous, per curiam decisions is a strategy that the court has used in other areas. In a 2015 qualified immunity case, Mullenix v. Luna, the justices issued a per curiam opinion protecting a police officer who had shot and killed a fleeing suspect despite the officer's superior ordering him to hold his fire. The justices then used that per curiam decision to grant immunity to officers in three other cases by issuing per curiam orders reversing lower court rulings that the officers had violated various constitutional protections. The combination of these unsigned orders has shifted jurisprudence on qualified immunity across the country; by reversing lower courts multiple times, the justices have tilted judges' decision-making in favor of police seeking immunity rather than individuals seeking redress for constitutional violations. The court has accomplished this anonymously, without even hearing oral arguments.

The justices used a different, though similarly opaque, procedure in the recent voting rights case. Two-thirds of Florida voters in 2018 approved a ballot measure to reinstate ex-felons' voting rights, but the state passed a law last year requiring them to pay any outstanding fines before registering. This is clearly a modern-day poll tax. The ex-felons sued, and the justices declined to suspend the law.

Like per curiam opinions, the vote tally is not disclosed when justices opt not to intervene in a case, even when that decision carries with it such profound consequences. The order denying review did not clarify that here again the conservative justices were united in rejecting the petition. We only know that because, as before, three liberal justices signed on to a dissent. (The fourth liberal justice chose not to weigh in for reasons unknown.)

Anonymity is hardly the hallmark of a democratic institution. Transparency and explanations are necessary to keep the public informed, and an informed public is necessary for democracy to function. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has opted to hide the authors of, or reasoning behind, the important decisions they've made since adjourning July 9.

Roberts has long been concerned with his legacy. If his more moderate decisions stem from a concern that future historians will judge him harshly, perhaps that's why the shield of anonymity frees his majority to deliver partisan wins.

But Roberts also understands the importance of transparency. In 2018, he argued that the court was the "most transparent branch in government [as far as] explaining what we're doing." Based on what we've seen in recent weeks, that is false. The court is all too willing to act behind closed doors, picking winners and losers without explaining why or how the decisions are made.

If Roberts wants to rebuild faith in the institution he proudly defends, he cannot continue hiding behind unsigned orders, especially when those orders carry partisan implications. As someone consumed by his legacy, Roberts should realize that the annals of history will not look kindly upon a court and a chief justice so enamored with opacity.

Dylan Hosmer-Quint is a research associate with Fix the Court, a national, nonpartisan organization advocating for transparency in the federal judiciary. He holds a B.A. from Yale University and has worked as an aide in the U.S. Senate.