@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
@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
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
“The Court We Need” — scheduled for Fall 2026 release. More important than ever.
Given that four justices during the oral argument in May went out of their way to stress the need for the full Court to issue a ruling settling the issue on a nationwide basis; & given that Justice Barrett memorialized that in her majority opinion, denying cert. wasn't gonna happen.
1) Not taking the Washington State case (in which Trump could've won on a *procedural* ground);
2) Clamoring for DOJ to bring this issue back on the merits during the May argument; and
3) DOJ going through the motions in doing so. Even *they* don't think they're going to win.
Or not.
georgetown.box.com/s/0ovhpw5pes...
www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
1) The justices' behavior at argument (with Kagan, Barrett, and Gorsuch all focused on ensuring the SG would appeal a loss so that the merits *would* come back to the Court); and
2) The SG's behavior since then, which is most pointedly *not* trying to win on any ground.
Leaving aside that that *wasn't* me, there's still lots of evidence for this case being different.
But they can't get that from denying certiorari. Hence the grant only in the one case without a procedural issue.
Reposted by Anna O. Law, Scott A. Imberman
Reposted by Maarten Vink, Nathan P. Kalmoe
As for why only one, this is the case that cleanly presents the merits (where Court’s likely to rule against Trump); the other case would’ve required the justices to decide if states had standing.
Reposted by Matthew Bodie
georgetown.box.com/s/0ovhpw5pes...
www.stevevladeck.com/p/2-decipher...
Reposted by Kim L. Scheppele, Rosemary A. Joyce
Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck
If you haven't read his book, The Shadow Docket, what are you waiting for? Read it, then The Pain Brokers (out Jan. 13)!
www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-ac...
Reposted by James Goodwin, Stephen I. Vladeck
It was supposed to be this afternoon.
www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-ac...