Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Steve Vladeck

@stevevladeck.bsky.social

240K followers 1K following 2.1K posts

@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 .. more

Videos

Stephen Isaiah Vladeck is an American legal scholar. He is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he specializes in the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice, especially with relation to the prosecution of war crimes. Vladeck has commented on the legality of the United States' use of extrajudicial detention and torture, and is a regular contributor to CNN. .. more

Political science 64%

Law 14%

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · Apr 4

I’m really excited about this — and about the chance to work with Allison Lorentzen and the entire @vikingbooks.bsky.social team!

KSV @ksvesq.bsky.social · Apr 4

The best guy I know just sold his (second) book and I COULD NOT BE MORE PROUD!

“The Court We Need” — scheduled for Fall 2026 release. More important than ever.

24 100 850

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 9h

Then she found out I was writing this post:

“Mommy, he’s cyberbullying me!”

9 15 440

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 9h

Sign that your 9YO may have two lawyers for parents:

Me: “You’re not complaining, are you?”

9YO: “No. I’m just stating my feelings in an aggravated tone!”

29 110 1.7K

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13h

I’ll have a few in tomorrow’s newsletter.

6 3 160

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13h

Writing about this for tomorrow’s issue of my newsletter!

1 41

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 20h

It’s the knee-jerk phenomenon in which all criticisms of the current Court are necessarily partisan and/or otherwise illegitimate.

It’s pretty tiresome, it’s not new, and it’s enabling all kinds of behavior that is bad for the Court and the country—a possibility these folks refuse to even consider.

1 3 25

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 21h

Or why that’s more important than the underlying *reasons* for the judges’ discontent, which none of the folks loudly complaining about the Times story are even trying to address (let alone provide satisfactory responses to).

6 1 24

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

They wouldn’t be “forced” to do anything, since the Court takes the (to me, correct) view that it has discretion to decline to exercise even its exclusive original jurisdiction.

More on that here: www.stevevladeck.com/p/38-origina...

On IL v. TX, specifically: www.stevevladeck.com/p/176-illino...

38. "Original" Jurisdiction and the Wyandotte Doctrine

Alaska is asking the justices not just to hear as a trial court its challenge to the EPA's veto of the "Pebble Mine," but to overrule a 52-year-old precedent holding that the Court doesn't have to

www.stevevladeck.com

2 3 39

Reposted by Joseph Schafer, Stephen I. Vladeck

Jay Young @impactofficer.bsky.social · 3d

A good read (as usual) from @stevevladeck.bsky.social on the lack of deterrence:

"[A] federal officer today faces almost no meaningful specter of losing a damages lawsuit even for actions that violate clearly established constitutional rights."

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-182-...

Bonus 182: Damages as a (Missing) Deterrent

It's worth reflecting on how different things might look right now if federal officers—or the federal government itself—faced a meaningful specter of monetary liability for constitutional violations.

www.stevevladeck.com

2 35 110

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 3d

The problem, as the piece notes, is state immunity doctrines—which would bar relief under the FTCA if comparable claims against state officers would be subject to such a defense.

4 5

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 3d

“A more robust and effective damages regime obviously would not prevent unconstitutional conduct by government officers. But it sure would be an easy way to reduce its frequency—and it would also be a remarkably easy statute to write.”

Me in today’s bonus issue of “One First”:

Bonus 182: Damages as a (Missing) Deterrent

www.stevevladeck.com

19 120 440

Reposted by Timothy Snyder, James Grimmelmann, Stephen I. Vladeck

Josh Chafetz @joshchafetz.bsky.social · 5d

Very nice piece from my colleague @stevevladeck.bsky.social in today's Times on the illegality of Trump's troop deployments to American cities. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/o...

Opinion | No, Trump Can’t Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants

www.nytimes.com

10 150 570

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 5d

Some of us were not "very comfortable with this," and have been warning about these powers for years.

The reason why Congress delegated this power was the fact that Congress was *out of session* for more than two-thirds of every year, and wasn't in a position to respond immediately to emergencies.

1 1 7

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 5d

I know it's tiresome to play the "imagine if the parties were reversed" game, but thinking about how Republicans (and right-wing media) would be reacting if a Democratic-controlled House was refusing to swear in a newly elected *Republican* member may be the apotheosis of this particular meme.

31 160 760

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 5d

1) I didn't write the headline.

2) The article itself rather specifically discusses this.

1 2

Reposted by Dorothy Bishop, Linda J. Skitka, Gerald Friedman , and 1 more Dorothy Bishop, Linda J. Skitka, Gerald Friedman, Stephen I. Vladeck

Jon Cooper @joncooper-us.bsky.social · 5d

Cartoon by @ivan-ehlers.bsky.social.

310 3.9K 11K

Reposted by Anna O. Law, David R. Miller

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 5d

The federal government does and should have the authority to deploy troops into our cities—even without local consent—*when the circumstances actually warrant it.*

In @nytopinion.nytimes.com, me on why the real issue in Portland, Chicago, and elsewhere is the missing / contrived factual predicate:

Opinion | No, Trump Can’t Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants

www.nytimes.com

30 140 530

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 6d

The first #SCOTUS ruling on an emergency application during the October 2025 Term is a denial, over no public dissents, of Google's application to pause the effect of the Ninth Circuit's latest ruling in its long-running dispute with Epic Games over the Android app store.

More details here:

Google Asks Supreme Court to Intervene in Dispute With Fortnite Creator

www.nytimes.com

3 26 100

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 6d

With the new #SCOTUS term officially beginning today, this week’s “regular” issue of One First looks at the final data on emergency applications from the October 2024 Term—one in which the justices set all kinds of records, almost all of which are positively unhealthy for the Court and the country:

181. Closing the Book on OT2024

As the October 2025 Term officially begins, it's worth taking a moment to highlight the record-setting—and revealing—final statistics for how the justices handled emergency applications during OT2024.

www.stevevladeck.com

2 53 200

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

Shelley English @shelleyenglish.bsky.social · 7d

Don't obey in advance.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-180-... @stevevladeck.bsky.social

3 41 170

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

It has to be from the Court region of France. Otherwise, it’s called something else.

4 1 75

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

Thanks. Me too.

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

It *was* repealed, as the links in my initial thread and this post explain.

They also explain why that doesn’t help him.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/181-courts...

181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military

In response to adverse judicial rulings, the President's advisers and supporters are claiming courts lack the power to halt domestic use of the military. A critical early precedent is to the contrary.

www.stevevladeck.com

Reposted by Robert C. Richards

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

So the argument is that Congress giving *judges* this power ≠ Congress giving *courts* this power?

Umm…

100 250 1.6K

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

Indeed; I was referring to a specific tweet.

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

Not least because of the current state of the law regarding such damages suits.

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

Of course!

1 7

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

No, this is a specific reference to tweets.

2 18

Reposted by Anna O. Law, John Morijn, Michael Plaxton

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

Tweet less; research more.

24 78 840

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

Here’s the longer version of this thread:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/181-courts...

181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military

www.stevevladeck.com

8 89 570

Reposted by Kim L. Scheppele, Robert C. Richards

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d

In light of Judge Immergut's ruling, there's a lot of noise today coming from the President's advisers and supporters about courts not having the power to provide prospective relief against domestic uses of the military.

Via "One First," me on the rather significant early precedent to the contrary:

181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military

www.stevevladeck.com

38 530 1.4K