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
Bio: www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck
"One First" Supreme Court newsletter: stevevladeck.com
Book: tinyurl.com/shadowdocketpb
Full disclosure: I'm co-counsel to the plaintiffs in this case (the victims and their families), and argued on their behalf in the Eleventh Circuit.
November 10, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Full disclosure: I'm co-counsel to the plaintiffs in this case (the victims and their families), and argued on their behalf in the Eleventh Circuit.
Totally fair, and I appreciate the exchange. I just chafe sometimes, perhaps unfairly, as being looped in with folks who don't spend as much time trying to substantiate their analyses. But I totally agree with the bottom line here.
November 10, 2025 at 3:43 PM
Totally fair, and I appreciate the exchange. I just chafe sometimes, perhaps unfairly, as being looped in with folks who don't spend as much time trying to substantiate their analyses. But I totally agree with the bottom line here.
Not really sure how to respond to this except by encouraging you to check it out and decide for yourself.
November 10, 2025 at 3:34 PM
Not really sure how to respond to this except by encouraging you to check it out and decide for yourself.
I literally wrote in my newsletter this morning about the possibility that Obergefell still isn't safe, my own view that at least for now it is, and why I totally understand those who aren't as confident:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/191-taking...
So it's not like I'm hiding the context here, but YMMW.
www.stevevladeck.com/p/191-taking...
So it's not like I'm hiding the context here, but YMMW.
191. Taking Stock After a Wild Week
It's getting increasingly difficult to keep tabs on even the Supreme Court-related (and Court-adjacent) news. Today's issue looks at where things stand (and what to expect next) across six key topics.
www.stevevladeck.com
November 10, 2025 at 3:28 PM
I literally wrote in my newsletter this morning about the possibility that Obergefell still isn't safe, my own view that at least for now it is, and why I totally understand those who aren't as confident:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/191-taking...
So it's not like I'm hiding the context here, but YMMW.
www.stevevladeck.com/p/191-taking...
So it's not like I'm hiding the context here, but YMMW.
Maybe go back and read this entire thread, which started with the good news, and then criticized the media for making it seem like this case had a chance?
It's not about "I told you so"; it's about having some faith that at least some of what this Court does can, in fact, be predicted.
It's not about "I told you so"; it's about having some faith that at least some of what this Court does can, in fact, be predicted.
November 10, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Maybe go back and read this entire thread, which started with the good news, and then criticized the media for making it seem like this case had a chance?
It's not about "I told you so"; it's about having some faith that at least some of what this Court does can, in fact, be predicted.
It's not about "I told you so"; it's about having some faith that at least some of what this Court does can, in fact, be predicted.
Not in a context remotely like this, no.
November 10, 2025 at 3:22 PM
Not in a context remotely like this, no.
I never said that.
But even if I had, one could also explain, with a fair amount of persuasiveness, why there was a heck of a lot more uncertainty in that case (in which the underlying constitutional question was properly presented) than in Kim Davis's question (in which it absolutely wasn't).
But even if I had, one could also explain, with a fair amount of persuasiveness, why there was a heck of a lot more uncertainty in that case (in which the underlying constitutional question was properly presented) than in Kim Davis's question (in which it absolutely wasn't).
November 10, 2025 at 3:21 PM
I never said that.
But even if I had, one could also explain, with a fair amount of persuasiveness, why there was a heck of a lot more uncertainty in that case (in which the underlying constitutional question was properly presented) than in Kim Davis's question (in which it absolutely wasn't).
But even if I had, one could also explain, with a fair amount of persuasiveness, why there was a heck of a lot more uncertainty in that case (in which the underlying constitutional question was properly presented) than in Kim Davis's question (in which it absolutely wasn't).
Yes, my "mistake" is trying to explain to people why the Court did something that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions. That's definitely an error on my part.
November 10, 2025 at 3:16 PM
Yes, my "mistake" is trying to explain to people why the Court did something that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions. That's definitely an error on my part.
I'm not trying to bully anyone. I've written literally thousands of words about why *this case* was never going to be the vehicle through which the Court revisited Obergefell, even if there's fair reason to not trust the Court otherwise. There comes a point where that kind of analysis should matter.
November 10, 2025 at 3:14 PM
I'm not trying to bully anyone. I've written literally thousands of words about why *this case* was never going to be the vehicle through which the Court revisited Obergefell, even if there's fair reason to not trust the Court otherwise. There comes a point where that kind of analysis should matter.
It's not about red lines; I've written at length about the insurmountable procedural obstacles to *reaching* the Obergefell question here.
The credibility of experts ought to turn on their ability to provide persuasive explanations for their predictions, not on the fact that someone else was wrong.
The credibility of experts ought to turn on their ability to provide persuasive explanations for their predictions, not on the fact that someone else was wrong.
November 10, 2025 at 3:00 PM
It's not about red lines; I've written at length about the insurmountable procedural obstacles to *reaching* the Obergefell question here.
The credibility of experts ought to turn on their ability to provide persuasive explanations for their predictions, not on the fact that someone else was wrong.
The credibility of experts ought to turn on their ability to provide persuasive explanations for their predictions, not on the fact that someone else was wrong.
Well then what's *your* explanation for the denial here?
November 10, 2025 at 2:58 PM
Well then what's *your* explanation for the denial here?
Because there were insurmountable obstacles to even reaching the Obergefell question in this case:
www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
173. Justice Kavanaugh and the Equities
Thursday's ruling in the NetChoice case appears to suggest that one of the key justices is either being inconsistent or completely hypocritical in how he is voting on emergency applications.
www.stevevladeck.com
November 10, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Because there were insurmountable obstacles to even reaching the Obergefell question in this case:
www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
173. Justice Kavanaugh and the Equities
Thursday's ruling in the NetChoice case appears to suggest that one of the key justices is either being inconsistent or completely hypocritical in how he is voting on emergency applications.
www.stevevladeck.com
November 10, 2025 at 2:49 PM
Because there were insurmountable obstacles to even reaching the Obergefell question in this case:
www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
173. Justice Kavanaugh and the Equities
Thursday's ruling in the NetChoice case appears to suggest that one of the key justices is either being inconsistent or completely hypocritical in how he is voting on emergency applications.
www.stevevladeck.com
November 10, 2025 at 2:48 PM
Because there were insurmountable obstacles to even reaching the Obergefell question in this case:
www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
"Some other people got something wrong, therefore no one knows what they're talking about."
Okay then.
Okay then.
November 10, 2025 at 2:40 PM
"Some other people got something wrong, therefore no one knows what they're talking about."
Okay then.
Okay then.
This is not a surprise to anyone who was closely following this case. It *ought* to be, however, a moment to reflect upon the responsibility (or not) of media outlets that, deliberately or not, led folks to believe that a grant was a serious possibility (which it never was).
November 10, 2025 at 2:34 PM
This is not a surprise to anyone who was closely following this case. It *ought* to be, however, a moment to reflect upon the responsibility (or not) of media outlets that, deliberately or not, led folks to believe that a grant was a serious possibility (which it never was).
I linked to the earlier explanation. She didn’t preserve the issue below; the case is not about a state enforcing a marriage ban; she could lose even if Obergefell gets overturned; etc.
November 10, 2025 at 12:39 PM
I linked to the earlier explanation. She didn’t preserve the issue below; the case is not about a state enforcing a marriage ban; she could lose even if Obergefell gets overturned; etc.
1) The First Circuit may not have ruled as quickly without what she wrote on Friday;
2) Had she balked Friday, the full #SCOTUS might've issued an open-ended pause on the lower-court rulings; now, that pause expires Tuesday night;
3) Now, SCOTUS has to do *something* between now and Tuesday night.
2) Had she balked Friday, the full #SCOTUS might've issued an open-ended pause on the lower-court rulings; now, that pause expires Tuesday night;
3) Now, SCOTUS has to do *something* between now and Tuesday night.
November 10, 2025 at 5:45 AM
1) The First Circuit may not have ruled as quickly without what she wrote on Friday;
2) Had she balked Friday, the full #SCOTUS might've issued an open-ended pause on the lower-court rulings; now, that pause expires Tuesday night;
3) Now, SCOTUS has to do *something* between now and Tuesday night.
2) Had she balked Friday, the full #SCOTUS might've issued an open-ended pause on the lower-court rulings; now, that pause expires Tuesday night;
3) Now, SCOTUS has to do *something* between now and Tuesday night.