Steve Vladeck
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
@ksvesq.bsky.social’s husband; father of daughters; professor @georgetownlaw.bsky.social; #SCOTUS nerd @CNN.com Bio: www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck "One First" Supreme Court newsletter: stevevladeck.com Book: tinyurl.com/shadowdocketpb
LIVE NOW: @klonick.bsky.social and @stevevladeck.bsky.social are discussing Vladeck's draft Harvard Law Review Supreme Court Foreword which argues that the Supreme Court is quietly dismantling district courts' authority. lawfare.substack.com/live-stream/...
LIVE NOW: Live with Steve Vladeck: The Courts v. The Court
Kate Klonick on Substack
lawfare.substack.com
When he was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers (the Republican candidate for Senate in Michigan) publicly took the position that "you can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated." Colbert had some fun with that: crooksandliars.com/cltv/2013/10...
Colbert Savages NSA And Rep. Mike Rogers In 'See No Evil' Segment
Colbert Savages NSA and Rep. Mike Rogers in 'See No Evil' Segment
crooksandliars.com
Folks on the other site are up in arms about the brief "administrative" stay Judge Burroughs issued in the Somalia TPS case—because, they claim, this kind of relief isn't a thing. Of course, when Texas judges issued much longer "administrative" pauses of Biden policies, these folks were ... silent.
Bonus 105: More "Administrative Stay" Shenanigans in Texas
A new emergency application in an immigration case provides an important opportunity for Justice Barrett to enforce her skepticism about open-ended "administrative stays."
stevevladeck.com
In addition to having no experience in immigration, their website shows Ilya Shapiro (!) and disgraced former law prof Joshua Wright (!) as Senior Counsel. I don't think this massive contract was awarded to give immigrant children effective, zealous advocacy. burkegroup.law/our-team/
Our Team - BURKE LAW GROUP, PLLC
Our Team
burkegroup.law
Politico@politico.com · 23h ago26-employee Texas law firm gets $150M to represent 24,000 children in immigration court
This explains so much of my confusion in my texts with my RAs.
KSV@ksvesq.bsky.social · yesterdayMy Gen Z employees have taught me that putting the !! sticker on a text means you agree with what the person is saying and not “omfg are you kidding me?!?” (as I had been using it frequently) and now I’m spiraling.
ICYMI. Essential reading from @stevevladeck.bsky.social open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...
242. The "Independent Court" Narrative
Efforts to defend the Supreme Court *because* of its independence miss both the real-world impacts of its behavior and the reason *why* independence matters.
open.substack.com
"The central problem with this Court, as I’ve argued (ad nauseam) before, is that this Court does what it pleases, when it pleases—because it has become completely unaccountable." Well put!
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d agoLots of efforts to prop up #SCOTUS have focused on the claim that the Court has shown itself to be “independent” of Trump. As today’s “One First” explains, “independence” may make it possible for the Court to rule against the other branches, but it’s only the means—not the end—of judicial review:
Yes, the Supreme Court works, which means that the public respects it and losing parties obey it, as a function of it getting enough of its decisions, in *our* (the public’s) views, right.
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d agoLots of efforts to prop up #SCOTUS have focused on the claim that the Court has shown itself to be “independent” of Trump. As today’s “One First” explains, “independence” may make it possible for the Court to rule against the other branches, but it’s only the means—not the end—of judicial review:
Lots of efforts to prop up #SCOTUS have focused on the claim that the Court has shown itself to be “independent” of Trump. As today’s “One First” explains, “independence” may make it possible for the Court to rule against the other branches, but it’s only the means—not the end—of judicial review:
242. The "Independent Court" Narrative
Efforts to defend the Supreme Court *because* of its independence miss both the real-world impacts of its behavior and the reason *why* independence matters.
stevevladeck.com
Lots of efforts to prop up #SCOTUS have focused on the claim that the Court has shown itself to be “independent” of Trump. As today’s “One First” explains, “independence” may make it possible for the Court to rule against the other branches, but it’s only the means—not the end—of judicial review:
242. The "Independent Court" Narrative
Efforts to defend the Supreme Court *because* of its independence miss both the real-world impacts of its behavior and the reason *why* independence matters.
stevevladeck.com
open.substack.com/pub/stevevla... Today's essay by @stevevladeck.bsky.social is another example of why you you should become a paid subscriber.
Bonus 241: The Mail-In Voting Applications
What the Court was asked to do on Monday is narrower than much of the coverage suggests—and a grant of relief would be far less significant than it may appear.
open.substack.com
The Trump administration is asking #SCOTUS to put back into effect its executive order giving the USPS more control over mail-in voting. Today's bonus "One First" explains why this is a purely procedural dispute at this juncture (about standing/ripeness)—albeit one the government should still lose:
Bonus 241: The Mail-In Voting Applications
What the Court was asked to do on Monday is narrower than much of the coverage suggests—and a grant of relief would be far less significant than it may appear.
stevevladeck.com
Steve tells you all you need to know about these cases and the emergency applications.
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 6d agoThe Trump administration is asking #SCOTUS to put back into effect its executive order giving the USPS more control over mail-in voting. Today's bonus "One First" explains why this is a purely procedural dispute at this juncture (about standing/ripeness)—albeit one the government should still lose:
The Trump administration is asking #SCOTUS to put back into effect its executive order giving the USPS more control over mail-in voting. Today's bonus "One First" explains why this is a purely procedural dispute at this juncture (about standing/ripeness)—albeit one the government should still lose:
Bonus 241: The Mail-In Voting Applications
What the Court was asked to do on Monday is narrower than much of the coverage suggests—and a grant of relief would be far less significant than it may appear.
stevevladeck.com
President Trump had (loudly) promised that he would ask #SCOTUS to grant rehearing of its June 30 decision blocking his executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship. The deadline for such a request was yesterday—and ... crickets.
In Cisco, #SCOTUS not only (unpersuasively) eviscerated the Alien Tort Statute, but it effectively neutered a 22-year-old precedent for no other reason than that the Republican appointees disagree w/ it. Today’s “One First” goes deep into the ruling—and why stare decisis is really *is* for suckers:
240. The Rise and Fall of the Alien Tort Statute
The Court's June 23 ruling in Cisco was significant not only for what it means for human rights accountability, but for the justices' approach to stare decisis.
stevevladeck.com
In Cisco, #SCOTUS not only (unpersuasively) eviscerated the Alien Tort Statute, but it effectively neutered a 22-year-old precedent for no other reason than that the Republican appointees disagree w/ it. Today’s “One First” goes deep into the ruling—and why stare decisis is really *is* for suckers:
240. The Rise and Fall of the Alien Tort Statute
The Court's June 23 ruling in Cisco was significant not only for what it means for human rights accountability, but for the justices' approach to stare decisis.
stevevladeck.com
On Tuesday, the full Fifth Circuit granted DOJ's request for a "precedential stay" of district court rulings holding that the Due Process Clause requires bond hearings for immigration detainees w/in 90 days of their arrest. Today's "One First" explains why that's a really big (and problematic) deal:
Bonus 239: The Fifth Circuit's "Precedential Stay" in Sosnava Rodriguez
The Fifth Circuit once again did the government's bidding on immigration detention—this time through an unexplained procedural move I've never seen before.
stevevladeck.com
I’ve never heard of such a thing: 1. District courts are saying due process demands this 2. three-judge appellate panel says that yes it does 3. Full appellate court says we’ll rehear the case 4. Full court says actually no, and also district courts need to stop doing stuff
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2w agoOn Tuesday, the full Fifth Circuit granted DOJ's request for a "precedential stay" of district court rulings holding that the Due Process Clause requires bond hearings for immigration detainees w/in 90 days of their arrest. Today's "One First" explains why that's a really big (and problematic) deal:
"The New Orleans-based court of appeals once again did the Trump administration's bidding on immigration detention—this time through an unexplained procedural move that ... I've never seen before."
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2w agoOn Tuesday, the full Fifth Circuit granted DOJ's request for a "precedential stay" of district court rulings holding that the Due Process Clause requires bond hearings for immigration detainees w/in 90 days of their arrest. Today's "One First" explains why that's a really big (and problematic) deal:
That's not a thing. That's an original injunction against the trial courts. That's insane.
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2w agoOn Tuesday, the full Fifth Circuit granted DOJ's request for a "precedential stay" of district court rulings holding that the Due Process Clause requires bond hearings for immigration detainees w/in 90 days of their arrest. Today's "One First" explains why that's a really big (and problematic) deal:
From Steve Vladeck, a very good explainer of the legal and procedural issues surrounding bond requirements in immigration cases, and how this is going down in the 5th Circuit, where the district courts are in rebellion. bsky.app/profile/stev...
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2w agoOn Tuesday, the full Fifth Circuit granted DOJ's request for a "precedential stay" of district court rulings holding that the Due Process Clause requires bond hearings for immigration detainees w/in 90 days of their arrest. Today's "One First" explains why that's a really big (and problematic) deal:
On Tuesday, the full Fifth Circuit granted DOJ's request for a "precedential stay" of district court rulings holding that the Due Process Clause requires bond hearings for immigration detainees w/in 90 days of their arrest. Today's "One First" explains why that's a really big (and problematic) deal:
Bonus 239: The Fifth Circuit's "Precedential Stay" in Sosnava Rodriguez
The Fifth Circuit once again did the government's bidding on immigration detention—this time through an unexplained procedural move I've never seen before.
stevevladeck.com
I don’t mind at all that there are people who don’t get that this is a quote from “Animal House.” But the assumption that I must be an idiot who doesn’t know anything (and the confident replies to that effect) is everything that is wrong with social media.
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2w ago“Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”
“Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”
Aaron Rupar@atrupar.com · 2w agoBLITZER: How do you explain the disconnect between what the president says and how Americans feel according to almost all of these most recent polls? REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ: Prior to World War 2, 85% of Americans were not in favor of entering that war, and then it all changes
A&M may be generating most of the anti-academic freedom headlines, but this is a pretty bleak sign of how things are going at my old employer, too: www.statesman.com/news/educati...
UT border surveillance scholar was a shoo-in for tenure. UT denied him.
American Studies scholar Iván Chaar López fears UT’s unexplained tenure denial violated his academic freedom amid scrutiny of controversial fields.
statesman.com
The most frightening and important analysis you’ll read this week, courtesy of @stevevladeck.bsky.social. open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...
239. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court
The Trump administration has activated a secret 30-year-old court that's never been used. Here's what we know, and why we should (and shouldn't) be worried.
open.substack.com
An excellent analysis of a legal procedure that has, until recently, never been used before.
Steve Vladeck@stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2w agoI've been teaching my National Security Law students about the "Alien Terrorist Removal Court" for 20 years. Now that the Trump administration is using it for the first time (ever), today's "One First" looks at what it actually *does,* why it exists, and where we should (and shouldn't) be concerned:
I've been teaching my National Security Law students about the "Alien Terrorist Removal Court" for 20 years. Now that the Trump administration is using it for the first time (ever), today's "One First" looks at what it actually *does,* why it exists, and where we should (and shouldn't) be concerned:
239. The Alien Terrorist Removal Court
The Trump administration has activated a secret 30-year-old court that's never been used. Here's what we know, and why we should (and shouldn't) be worried.
stevevladeck.com
