It's not unusual that the "shadow docket" orders have limited briefings when the extent of the ruling/order is usually procedural, as opposed to ruling on the merits of the case.

It should be noted any justice can write a dissent in a "shadow docket" ruling. If a justice finds a ruling incorrect, nothing hides their criticism of it from the light.

This is not really due to political balance as much as wanting to respect the standard escalation process and maintain decorum. They would rather that lower judges give proper justified rulings rather than spit out binding decisions on a whim without oral arguments, unless there's really an emergency.