Not a good title (because that’s not what his reasoning is) but a good article.

Kavanaugh warned that there is a “risk,” if the Court releases a majority opinion when the case reaches them on the shadow docket, “of a lock-in effect, of making a snap judgment and putting it in writing, in a written opinion that’s not going to reflect the final view.”

It’s not an unreasonable argument in theory, but I think Kavanaugh is trying to have his cake and eat it too. If the judgement doesn’t need to be explained because it’s a sort of rough draft that may be significantly modified later, then the judgement should be made with caution and deference to precedent because it is, after all, a rough draft and making big changes without fully considering the consequences would be unwise. Therefore “We’re temporarily limiting the President’s powers to what they have traditionally been interpreted to be” wouldn’t need an explanation but “We’re temporarily approving a significant extension of the President’s powers” does need one, and I’m not just saying that because the President is Trump. I get the poor consolation of being consistently disappointed as both Democrats and Republicans expand the power of the executive branch. (There is, however, a dramatic difference in magnitude - Trump is expanding executive power more than any president since at least FDR.)