Sign in

iiinova is part of the Atmosphere — an open, public network where you own your identity.

Steve Vladeck

@stevevladeck.bsky.social
251.6K followers 1.1K following 3.9K posts

@ksvesq.bsky.social’s husband; father of daughters; prof. @georgetownlaw.bsky.social; #SCOTUS nerd @CNN.com Bio: www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck "One First" SCOTUS newsletter: stevevladeck.com Book: tinyurl.com/thecourtweneed

PostsRepliesMedia
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15/10/2026
Calls for expanding #SCOTUS are entirely (and increasingly) understandable. But as today's "One First" explains, there are at least four difficult questions that those who support expansion should have to answer—especially as compared to other possible reforms: www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-257-...
Screenshot from the post listing the four questions Court expansion proponents should have to answer:

1. How do we avoid touching off a race to the bottom, where each time one party controls the House, Senate, and presidency, it expands the Court to ensure an ideologically and politically sympathetic majority?

2. If a race to the bottom is unavoidable, how do we avoid further (and potentially fatal) erosion of public confidence in the Court—which will quite transparently be little more than a lever of power for whichever party last had such a trifecta?

3. If eroding public confidence in the Court is a feature, and not a bug, how do we insulate against the same erosion of public confidence in lower federal courts?

4. What is the case for why expansion is a better way to achieve the desired reforms than alternatives that would (or, at least, should) avoid many of these forward-looking concerns?
474738174 738
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026
I’m visiting a colleague’s class today (to evaluate them), and grabbed a notebook for those purposes on my way out of my office. This is what I saw when I opened it (Maddie is my 10YO):
4482425 824
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Justice Alito devotes an entire chapter of his new book to the emergency docket—and to responding to people like me (“the most prolific academic critic of the emergency docket”). As I explain over at “One First,” it … didn’t go well: www.stevevladeck.com/p/256-so-une...
In the pre-publication galleys to his new book, So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court, and Our Country, Justice Alito spelled my last name inconsistently. This is, I suspect, the pettiest possible point on which to open in discussing a Supreme Court justice’s new memoir, and I would never have mentioned it except for the fact that inconsistency turns out to be the organizing feature of the chapter in which I (“the most prolific academic critic of the emergency docket”) repeatedly appear.The central inconsistency of Chapter 8, which is devoted to the emergency docket, is structural: Rather than tackle the subject holistically (as one might expect in a book), Alito mashed together the speech he gave five years ago at Notre Dame Law School with a “postscript.” The former was deeply flawed even at the time (among lots of other things, Alito repeatedly insisted that there was “nothing new” about the Court’s behavior on emergency applications during the first Trump administration and COVID); and the latter tries to move the goalposts away from the specific phenomena to which critics like me have actually objected.The result is to leave readers with a disjointed, inaccurate, and misleading sense of what the debate is even about—to say nothing of how the Court’s own behavior since September 2021 (including Alito’s) has only further undermined the already-flawed claims Alito made back then. Somewhere between the galleys of Alito’s book and the final product (which hits bookstores today), someone apparently figured out that my last name should be spelled the same way (and correctly!) throughout. The other, more significant inconsistencies were, apparently, harder to fix.
1133734759 3.7K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
When you’re doing a Zoom presentation on #SCOTUS and Stitch (or, at least, my 8YO in a Stitch costume) makes a cameo: 📸: @meeradeo.bsky.social
2353220 532
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
Later in the thread. Two problems: (1) many of these folks are *not* undocumented—they’re just removable; and (2) in any event, whether they received the process that is due before being deported to somewhere they might be tortured is, in fact, much of what’s *actually being litigated.*
“To be clear, this is a big win for President Trump and gives him an important tool to ensure that illegal aliens are promptly removed after receiving all process due.”
327740 277
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 29/09/2026
There is a cottage industry on that other site of people in official government legal jobs affirmatively misstating or misrepresenting what rulings are about and then expressing surprise that anyone could possibly disagree. Just the latest example—from the Solicitor General of Iowa:
“Can President Trump use lawful authority granted by Congress to deport illegal aliens to third countries? The Supreme Court has stayed an order saying no twice, now stayed a permanent injunction for a third time. Oddly, 6-3 despite a similar posture to the Missouri First map”
1147393 473
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 25/09/2026
The last two sentences are … direct. Link: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
36899164 899
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 25/09/2026
Here's a graphic that does a better job of conveying the point than my original post: even by the (insane) standards of the first Trump administration, #SCOTUS is receiving—and granting—a truly unprecedented number of applications for emergency relief from the federal government:
A chart that shows the number of emergency applications filed and granted by the Supreme Court during each presidency dating back to George W. Bush, with the data annualized to show the far-higher frequencies since 2017, but especially during the Trump I and Trump II administrations.
37814397 814
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 21/09/2026
The Eighth Circuit has ordered the district court to reinstate Missouri’s 2025 congressional map. But before folks freak out, it also ordered that court to pause such a ruling for long enough that the challengers can (and will) seek further review from #SCOTUS: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/28...
To allow for appellate review, the district court should administratively stay its permanent injunction until September 28, 2026, at 5 p.m. Central Daylight Time. Without any stay, Secretary Hoskins and local election authorities would be required to immediately begin implementing the 2025 map before the Supreme Court receives or decides any appeal. And without a limit to the stay, PNP could wait to file its petition for a writ of certiorari until the December 21, 2026, due date, see
SUP. CT. R. 13.1, thus preventing the Supreme Court from considering the merits of this case until after Missouri has conducted the November 2026 general election. The mandate shall issue forthwith
681653453 1.7K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13/09/2026
And we’re back from our summer break from the 8YO’s 6 a.m. Sunday synchronized skating practices (which I usually devote to writing Monday’s “One First”). Sigh. Or should I say 💤💤.
Picture of a laptop (with the Substack editor open on screen to a new draft), AirPods, and a water bottle with an empty ice skating rink behind it.
102675 267
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 10/09/2026
And one last point, from my newsletter this morning:
16854135 854
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 10/09/2026
#BREAKING: Over *no* public dissents, #SCOTUS *stays* the federal district court’s TRO in the Missouri redistricting case, effectively restoring the Missouri Supreme Court ruling from last week (and the 2022 map that it requires the state to use in November).
683223767 3.2K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 09/09/2026
New accessory for the fall, courtesy of my friends at @strictscrutiny.bsky.social. I’m not sure it’s big enough…
Picture of a small, silver flask with the words “EMERGENCY RELIEF” imprinted on its front.
1633625 336
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/09/2026
I noticed that I wasn’t receiving external emails for a while this morning, so I emailed IT about it. This is their response. I realize I’m old, but how am I supposed to ask people to re-send emails they don’t know didn’t make it to me—and that I don’t know they tried to send? Like, seriously?!?
Picture of an email that reads:

“Between 8:45 AM and 11:47 AM external emails may not have been received. The emails that weren't delivered are not in a queue to eventually be delivered, they will need to be resent. Sorry for the inconvenience.”
4332923 329
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 31/08/2026
The Trump administration has filed 36 emergency applications since last February, which have generated 31 conclusive rulings. In those 31 rulings, the Court has voted *for* Trump in whole or in part 27 times (87.1%), and against him four times (12.9%). Here's a chart covering all of these rulings:
A (messy) Excel spreadsheet tracking all of the Trump administration's emergency applications, when they were filed, when they were decided, what kind of ruling they produced, and how each justice voted.
901865913 1.9K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 21/08/2026
Chief Justice Roberts has issued an “administrative” stay In the ballroom case—which effectively allows Trump to keep doing what he’s doing while the full Court decides whether to let him keep working indefinitely while the case moves forward (which it probably will, given this intervention).
1691006316 1K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/08/2026
So you’re saying there’s a chance…
111588 158
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 09/07/2026
TBH, it's not a very good likeness of me (or Karen)... (H/T: GULC alumna Maria Lowe.)
A picture of a cartoon from The New Yorker, with a man and a woman sitting on a couch in front of a TV, and the man says "The Supreme Court has declined to uphold a ruling overturning the Ninth Circuit's denial of a stay to block a district-court ban. Happy? Or outraged?"
1238924 389
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/07/2026
This passage from @davidlat.bsky.social perfectly captures the false dichotomy you see so often from the Supreme Court's defenders: The Court is held out as "independent" because it doesn't *always* rule for Trump. That whitewashes (1) how often it *does*; & (2) its bad behavior in non-Trump cases.
Screenshot from David Lat's "Original Jurisdiction" newsletter that reads:

Runner-up for Judge of the Week: Chief Justice Roberts. The end of a Term brings with it evaluations of the Supreme Court—and, of course, the Chief Justice as its leader. For critiques of the current conservative Court—and, implicitly, Chief Justice Roberts—see the views of Professors Kate Shaw and Steve Vladeck in this spirited debate in The Times (gift link).

I call it a “spirited debate” because of the vigorous pushback that Shaw and Vladeck received from Professor Will Baude (who clerked for the Chief). See also this post at Executive Functions by Professor Jack Goldsmith—no fan of the Trump administration—titled “The Powerful, Resilient, Independent Supreme Court.” Or if Goldsmith is too conservative a commentator for your tastes, check out this staff editorial by The Washington Post (gift link), “The Supreme Court’s not-so-MAGA majority.”
441816454 1.8K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 05/07/2026
Sunday morning newsletter writing: Covent Garden Wimbledon watching edition.
Picture of a Wimbledon watching lawn area at Covent Garden in London.
92395 239
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 26/06/2026
Some late-Friday-afternoon news from #SCOTUS: Acting as Circuit Justice, Chief Justice Roberts has administratively paused the mandate in Fox reporter Catherine Herridge's appeal of her contempt citation for refusing to reveal the source of records leaked to her in violation of the Privacy Act.
Text of order issuing administrative stay of the D.C. Circuit's mandate in Catherine Herridge's appeal of her contempt citation.
417647 176
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 24/06/2026
Here's my list of the 11 remaining "merits" cases in which we expect decisions from #SCOTUS starting tomorrow (and 1–2 other days—maybe Friday/Monday/Tuesday). We also expect a ruling on President Trump's emergency application in the Lisa Cook case. The key to the color coding is in the alt-text.
An image from an Excel spreadsheet tracking merits cases before the Supreme Court this term.

The left-hand column depicts the docket number, and is highlighted in blue for cases in which the federal government is a party.

The second column names the cases, and depicts the one pair of consolidated cases (Doe and Miot) with the second case in orange highlighting.

The third column depicts the originating lower court, with purple highlight for cases in which the Court granted certiorari "before judgment"; with green highlight for cases from the Fifth Circuit; and with blue highlight for cases from state courts.

The fourth and fifth columns depict the date on which the Court heard argument and the number of days since.
217349 173
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 16/06/2026
Breaking News via @ksvesq.bsky.social from our younger daughter’s 8YO well visit:
Picture of text message: “Babe I have bad news. She’s only at 75th percent for height.”
211646 164
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 12/06/2026
#BREAKING: Over public dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, #SCOTUS *denies* emergency application from Alabama; keeps in place injunction barring execution by nitrogen hypoxia of Jeffery Lee.
Text of Supreme Court order denying emergency application in Lovelace v. Lee.
3146271 462
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
With the four decisions #SCOTUS handed down today, we crossed the halfway point for rulings in argued cases. 32 down (first image, sorted by date of decision); 25 to go (second image, sorted by date of argument). And that doesn't include the Lisa Cook emergency application. It's gonna be a June...
A picture of an Excel spreadsheet tracking the Supreme Court's rulings in argued cases during its October 2025 Term.A picture of an Excel spreadsheet tracking the Supreme Court's rulings in argued cases during its October 2025 Term.
519557 195
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 23/05/2026
When I graduated from Amherst College 25(!) years ago, I never would’ve dreamed that I’d come back as a trustee. One of the *many* reasons it’s such an honor is the chance to celebrate with each graduating class at Commencement. Congratulations to the Class of 2026!! May you enlighten the earth!
Picture of me in full (Amherst-colored) doctoral regalia.
2587634 876
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15/05/2026
No surprise, but with no public dissents, #SCOTUS denies Virginia’s long-shot request to reinstate its new congressional map: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
61713212 713
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15/05/2026
#SCOTUS has posted a new version of Justice Alito’s mifepristone dissent that replaces the awkwardly revealing typo with just a dumb typo. There’s a HIPAA joke here somewhere, except it’s not funny: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
2435075 350
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15/05/2026
As someone pointed out to me offline, this is a really funny typo in Alito’s mifepristone dissent: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
1214038700 4K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 04/05/2026
One of the most amusingly petty things Justice Alito does is to put deadlines on administrative stays *only* when he is deeply *unsympathetic* to the applicants. He did it in the 2023 mife case and the 2024 SB4 immigration case; and he did it today. In all other cases, his stays are indefinite:
632754912 2.8K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 04/05/2026
#BREAKING: Justice Alito, acting as Circuit Justice, has just issued administrative stays of the Fifth Circuit's Friday ruling in the mifepristone case (so he's temporarily restored full access to mife). The stay will expire, absent further a order from Alito or #SCOTUS, at 5 p.m. ET on May 11.
27906321 906
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 27/04/2026
And with that, the first complete draft of the manuscript for “The Court We Need” is off to my (wonderful) editor.
Picture of the bottom of a Microsoft Word window showing 243 pages and 100,197 words.
46128048 1.3K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 27/04/2026
Here's #SCOTUS summarily reversing the three-judge district court's ruling in the Texas redistricting case *because* of its "interim" grant of emergency relief back in December. That's not surprising, of course. But it's yet another data point for why calling it the "interim" docket is misleading.
Picture of an order from the Supreme Court in Abbott v. LULAC that reads:

"For the reasons set forth in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, 607 U. S. ___ (2025), we reverse the District Court’s judgment. Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson dissent from the Court's summary reversal."
1332283 322
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 26/04/2026
This week’s installment of “at which kid’s sporting event am I writing the newsletter?” has us back at Cabin John Ice Rink for 7YO’s synchronized skating practice. At least the spring practices start at 8:45 a.m., instead of the usual 6:00…
52784 278
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 23/04/2026
“Harm to the government only matters for emergency applications when the government is the moving party” is not just a normatively bizarre argument; it’s inconsistent with countless cases in which #SCOTUS has analyzed the harm to governmental respondents—whether finding it to be conclusive or not.
1021148 211
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 19/04/2026
Me: Writes a book documenting in detail how #SCOTUS’s approach to emergency applications shifted in the mid-2010s, and why those shifts are problematic without regard to the results. SI: But a 6-3 Court once vacated part of a Fifth Circuit stay in a specific Texas abortion case. So checkmate, libs!
29700106 700
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 19/04/2026
This edition of Sunday morning newsletter writing comes from a 10U volleyball tournament at the Maryland Juniors Sports Center.
1127210 272
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 18/04/2026
230 3
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 17/04/2026
It has to be a bit at this point.
Episode 12 of the "Rationally Based" pocast, titled (not ironically) "Judges Gone Wild."

Description: "Our hosts, law professor Ilan Wurman and Kathryn Johnson, rave about the Supreme Court's shadow docket. The shadow docket allows the Court quickly to rein in rogue district judges and their crazy opinions. Our hosts in particular talk about Justice Kavanaugh's shadow docket decision involving "Kavanaugh Stops," Justice Sotomayor's personal attack on Kavanaugh, Judge Boasberg's TdA ruling, and the D.C. Circuit's benchslap of his recent attempt to hold Trump officials in contempt. They also talk about exit taxes, and their most academic topic to date: What is the object of legal interpretation? Does the intent of the legislature matter? Only the text? Something else?"
2539036 390
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 16/04/2026
Our prominent friend has moved on to defending the shadow docket—in a series of tweets that only eventually revealed that he represents some of the parties on the wrong side of some of the district court rulings to which he’s objecting. Also, the “most sensible people” line is really something.
44975162 975
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 09/04/2026
“At least seven prominent law professors.” As I suggested on Monday, this is just like Justice Gorsuch’s “battle of law reviews.” It’s not about the frickin’ scoreboard: www.stevevladeck.com/p/219-drunks...
2531425208 1.4K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 29/03/2026
Qualified immunity and a 10U volleyball tournament: The stuff Sundays are made of…
Picture of the top of a laptop with a Substack editor page open to a draft of a post titled “Qualified Immunity and the Shadow Docket,” with the chaos of a volleyball tournament behind it.
93118 311
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 26/03/2026
#LGM
First pitch at the Mets’ home opener, March 26, 2026.
10953 95
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 21/03/2026
He never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
6069272 692
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 16/03/2026
#SCOTUS just granted certiorari before judgment in *both* the Syria and Haiti Temporary Protected Status (TPS) cases—and will hear argument on the merits in April. But it *deferred* the Trump administration's stay applications in both cases, so the DHS actions in those cases remain blocked for now:
Consideration of the application for stay (25A952) presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is deferred. Consideration of the application for stay (25A999) presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is also deferred. The applications are also treated as petitions for a writ of certiorari before judgment (25-1083, 25-1084), and the petitions are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The cases will be heard during the second week of the April 2026 argument session. Petitioners’ brief on the merits, and any amicus curiae briefs in support or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Monday March 30, 2026. Respondents’ briefs on the merits and any amicus curiae briefs in support, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 13, 2026. The reply brief, if any, is to be filed on or before Monday, April 20, 2026.
21870217 870
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 07/03/2026
I’m currently writing a book about what’s really wrong with #SCOTUS and how to fix it. Suffice it to say, this ain’t it:
Headline and subhed of Washington Post op-ed arguing that there should be more representation of evangelical Christians on the Supreme Court and other government institutions.
2403089492 3.1K
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
"Some may say a different standard should apply where alleged gang members, who were undoubtedly removable under other authorities, were at risk of being removed." No, Josh. I'd say a different standard applies to #SCOTUS's jurisdiction over state courts vs. lower federal courts—because it's true.
Third, what do we make of the fact that the Supreme Court did not wait for the New York Court of Appeals to issue a ruling? Well, let's talk about A.A.R.P. v. Trump again. As readers will recall, the Supreme Court found that the district court's failure to rule on emergency motion in the span of a few hours was a constructive denial, and then the Supreme Court felt compelled to intervene before the Fifth Circuit had even issued a ruling. (As it turns out, the Fifth Circuit ruled a few moments after the Supreme Court did, and the Supreme Court almost certainly knew that ruling was coming, but the Chief Justice never sweats the details.) All of this happened in the span of 24 hours. Perhaps some may say a different standard should apply where alleged gang members, who were undoubtedly removable under other authorities, were at risk of being removed. I would reply that the clearly established rights of residents of Staten Island to be represented under constitutional maps is of a greater importance than those of purported alien enemies trying to fight removal.
814225 142
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
7/9: Alito thus claims (in the next sentence) that the applicants had "nowhere else to turn" for relief besides #SCOTUS, entirely because he asserts that the Court of Appeals' 2/11 ruling transferring the case to the Appellate Division was *effectively* the final word of the state's highest court.
With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls
within that category.
142444 424
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
6/9: Now come back to what Justice Alito wrote about all of this. Read the last sentence here closely: Alito makes it seem as if the Court of Appeals' February 11 transfer to the Appellate Division came *after* the Appellate Division had already denied a stay. But it came *eight days beforehand.*
Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial court’s order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the State’s intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial court’s order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial court’s
order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants’ motions for a stay.
346772 467
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 03/03/2026
1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings. I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:
Screenshot of excerpt from opinion that reads:

"Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial court’s order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the State’s intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial court’s order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants’ motions for a stay."With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls
within that category.
381494519 1.5K