Scholar
LightNews

Stephen I. Vladeck

Videos

Stephen Isaiah Vladeck is an American legal scholar. He is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he… more

Stephen I. Vladeck
H-index: 7
Political science 64%
Law 14%
more

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Maggie.
1 7

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck, Laurent Pech

stevevladeck.bsky.social
#ICYMI: Yesterday’s “One First” summarized just how weak the defenses of the Supreme Court’s behavior on Trump-related emergency applications have been—and explained what someone would have to do to *actually* defend all that the Court’s majority has been doing:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/183-the-mi...
After all, maybe one can defend the Court granting emergency relief more often than ever before and in cases with far greater real-world (and structural) impacts. And maybe one can defend the Court altering (if not completely scrapping) the traditional balance of the equities in these cases. But does that defense extend to the Court doing so especially in cases in which President Trump is a party-and no others? And does it extend to the Court doing all of this without usually providing written explanations of what it is doing-or why? And even if the answer is somehow "yes," does it also extend to the Court doing all of this, not usually explaining what it's doing or why, and nevertheless accusing lower courts who fail to read the justices' minds of "defying" the Court? I have a very hard time believing that anyone can genuinely make it through even three of those sentences with a coherent defense of what the Supreme Court has done over the past seven months-let alone all five of them. I'd love to see such an argument, if it exists, but I haven't been-and won't be-holding my breath.
11 120 390

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Yup.
3

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
The full Court didn’t sit for the first time until February 2, 1790. But the Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the justices a bunch of duties separate and apart from sitting on the full Court—so it made sense that several were sworn in before the en banc Court sat.
1 3

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

jimoleske.bsky.social
In her judicial opinions engaging originalism, Justice Barrett has thoughtfully raised key questions about the challenges of implementing the methodology.

In her non-judicial appearance on Fox yesterday, Barrett was decidedly less thoughtful when defending the Court's shadow docket behavior.
Moreover, as I’ve explained at length before, the Court would have no trouble writing such an opinion in a way that doesn’t lock in any future result if and when the case returns on the merits; all it would have to do is rest its analysis on a proper balancing of the equities and a clear statement that it wasn’t conclusively resolving the merits—something it’s had no trouble insisting upon in non-Trump-related cases. As for Justice Barrett’s concern that even a short opinion might “give the impression that we have finally resolved the issue,” it’s the justices who, for the first time, are publicly insisting that even their unexplained rulings on emergency applications are entitled to precedential effect—something that wouldn’t make sense unless the justices have reached some kind of merits-based conclusion. To pretend that isn’t happening borders on gaslighting.
5 22 110

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

whatlawfoxsays.bsky.social
Steve is such a treasure. Excellent piece on the Court’s current practices and its defenders. To me this is a key point - revealing the fundamental lawlessness of its behavior. Literally, it is not applying the relevant law. There is no defense of this that any law professor should condone.
The question is why the justices can’t be bothered to even briefly (1) identify the proper standard for granting the relief the Trump administration is seeking; and (2) explain why proper application of that standard to the case at hand warrants granting the requested relief, even on an interim basis.
1 37 140

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Today’s “One First” looks at how #SCOTUS and its defenders have responded to criticisms of the Court’s behavior in Trump cases either by knocking down straw men or by attacking the critics—without meaningfully defending what the Court is actually *doing*:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/183-the-mi...
After all, maybe one can defend the Court granting emergency relief more often than ever before and in cases with far greater real-world (and structural) impacts. And maybe one can defend the Court altering (if not completely scrapping) the traditional balance of the equities in these cases. But does that defense extend to the Court doing so especially in cases in which President Trump is a party—and no others? And does it extend to the Court doing all of this without usually providing written explanations of what it is doing—or why? And even if the answer is somehow “yes,” does it also extend to the Court doing all of this, not usually explaining what it’s doing or why, and nevertheless accusing lower courts who fail to read the justices’ minds of “defying” the Court? I have a very hard time believing that anyone can genuinely make it through even three of those sentences with a coherent defense of what the Supreme Court has done over the past seven months—let alone all five of them. I’d love to see such an argument, if it exists, but I haven’t been—and won’t be—holding my breath.
21 190 580

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Then she found out I was writing this post:

“Mommy, he’s cyberbullying me!”
12 18 520

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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!”
51 170 2.7K

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
I’ll have a few in tomorrow’s newsletter.
6 3 170

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Writing about this for tomorrow’s issue of my newsletter!
1 49

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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 4 27

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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 27

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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 40

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck, Joseph Schafer

impactofficer.bsky.social
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 36 120

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
“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
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
19 120 450

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

joshchafetz.bsky.social
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

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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.
31 160 770

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
1) I didn't write the headline.

2) The article itself rather specifically discusses this.
1 2

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

joncooper-us.bsky.social
Cartoon by @ivan-ehlers.bsky.social.
310 3.9K 11K

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck, Anna O. Law, David R. Miller

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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 26 110

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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
3 54 200

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

shelleyenglish.bsky.social
Don't obey in advance.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-180-... @stevevladeck.bsky.social
3 41 170

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
It has to be from the Court region of France. Otherwise, it’s called something else.
4 1 75

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Thanks. Me too.
7

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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
3

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by Robert C. Richards

stevevladeck.bsky.social
So the argument is that Congress giving *judges* this power ≠ Congress giving *courts* this power?

Umm…
99 250 1.6K

References

Fields & subjects

Updated 1m