Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13hThe best part of the exchange between Mike Rogers and me to which @abdulelsayed.bsky.social is referring here is what Stephen Colbert did with it: crooksandliars.com/cltv/2013/10...crooksandliars.comColbert Savages NSA And Rep. Mike Rogers In 'See No Evil' SegmentColbert Savages NSA and Rep. Mike Rogers in 'See No Evil' Segment 1132683
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13hUmm, *I was the “somebody”! www.c-span.org/clip/house-c... 342367392
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 17hD.C. people: Come see @rachelshelden.bsky.social and me talk about her fantastic new book about #SCOTUS at @politicsprose.bsky.social (the Connecticut Avenue location) on Monday, October 26, at 7 p.m.: politics-prose.com/rachel-sheld...politics-prose.comRachel A. Shelden — The Political Supreme Court: A Forgotten History - with Steve Vladeck — at Conn AveRachel A. Shelden is associate professor of history and director of the George and Ann Richards Civil War Era Center at Penn State University. A leading scholar of nineteenth-century America, Shelden is a member of the Historians Council on the Constitution at the Brennan Center for Justice. 313331
Reposted by Steve VladeckSteve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026The First Amendment wasn’t actually “first.” The original First Amendment was meant to ensure that the House of Representatives grew in loose proportion to the country. Instead, the House’s size hasn’t changed since 1911. Today’s “One First” on that history—and the problems a capped House creates:stevevladeck.comBonus 256: The Original “First” AmendmentThe only provision from the original Bill of Rights that was never adopted would've grown the House in proportion to the country. We should revisit it. 35854222
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 23hThat link isn’t live yet, but it should be shortly. 0340
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 23hThe second Trump administration has now officially surpassed the first Trump administration with its 42nd application to #SCOTUS for emergency relief. This one is in the same case about lower ad rates for political parties in which the Court previously granted a stay in September. It’ll be 26A476:supremecourt.govSearch 616040
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026As the post explains, it expanded temporarily to 437, but reverted to 435 after the 1960 Census (in which two states lost seats to the new admittees). 052
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026I’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): 4279825
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026Which is why the post argues for a version of its text, not its literal text. 1120
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026The First Amendment wasn’t actually “first.” The original First Amendment was meant to ensure that the House of Representatives grew in loose proportion to the country. Instead, the House’s size hasn’t changed since 1911. Today’s “One First” on that history—and the problems a capped House creates:stevevladeck.comBonus 256: The Original “First” AmendmentThe only provision from the original Bill of Rights that was never adopted would've grown the House in proportion to the country. We should revisit it. 35854222
Reposted by Steve VladeckSteve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026Justice 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... 1133727755
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 07/10/2026Nothing hits quite like the unexpected, non-weather-related 7:45 a.m. “your daughter’s school is closed today” text message. 62267
Reposted by Steve VladeckMark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 06/10/2026However good you think this is going to be, it’s better. Steve just has Alito dead to rights. 11728135
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026Is there anything to the possibility that there are folks who haven't accepted what you have about Alito, and who might still benefit from efforts to identify the shortcomings in his analyses, either because they find those efforts persuasive or because they at least become aware that they exist? 3210
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026Agreed. I also think there are important recent examples of the post-argument consensus being wrong (about the margin, at least, if not the outcome). 1191
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026The food was terrible—and such small portions! 0140
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026There are better ones, e.g.: bsky.app/profile/stev... 1530215
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026I'll admit that the fuming bothers me a lot less than the refusal (or inability?) to actually engage with the substance of the critiques. Folks like me have been saying the exact same things about the Court's behavior on the emergency docket for five years, and his response is totally orthogonal. 1041322
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026See also "maybe I should check to see how my arguments have held up over the last five years? Nah!" 1141
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026I've never understood what the response is to Part V of Justice Ginsburg's dissent. 130
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026Justice 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... 1133727755
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026When 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 2353120
Reposted by Steve VladeckSteve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 05/10/2026After recapping yet another busy week of #SCOTUS news, today’s “One First” officially closes the book on the Court’s October 2025 Term with some final (and pretty mind-boggling) data about just how busy—and just how ideologically charged and divided—the emergency docket was:stevevladeck.com255. Closing the Book on OT2025As the October 2026 Term begins, it's worth taking a moment to highlight the *real* final statistics for the Court’s output during the October 2025 Term. 434090
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 05/10/2026After recapping yet another busy week of #SCOTUS news, today’s “One First” officially closes the book on the Court’s October 2025 Term with some final (and pretty mind-boggling) data about just how busy—and just how ideologically charged and divided—the emergency docket was:stevevladeck.com255. Closing the Book on OT2025As the October 2026 Term begins, it's worth taking a moment to highlight the *real* final statistics for the Court’s output during the October 2025 Term. 434090
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 03/10/2026Maybe you could read the links provided in the thread, which are all about *recent* examples of “how it ACTUALLY is” that … prove the point? I’m just as exhausted from the “nothing matters and no one knows what they’re talking about” mentality that pervades too much of our contemporary discourse. 081
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 03/10/2026Which is why the fact that so many of the examples I discuss in those articles are from the last couple of years ought to be relevant. 071
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026Yes, it is always possible that the Court will do something it hasn't done before. I just think there are good reasons why it hasn't wanted to, and still won't want to, open a Pandora's Box of having its docket swamped by red state vs. blue state political disputes where it has to play trial court. 081
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026There are *zero* examples in the last 30 years of the Court granting leave to file an original case between states based upon claims that could, in the *justices'* view, be fully litigated in litigation in the lower courts. And there are many, many examples of denials in the face of "comity" claims. 1100
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026They've made the constitutional argument, too, but that one's silly (it's not A-III that makes the Court's original JX "exclusive"; it's § 1251(a)). And they don't really believe it, or else they'd also dissent when the Court denies § 1251(b) cases. It's all about whether "exclusive" = "mandatory." 2140
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026There's an explanation in both the rest of that thread and in this post: www.stevevladeck.com/p/5f1c20a8-4... Please explain how I've "maligned" Eric by documenting the inaccuracies in what he posted.stevevladeck.comOne FirstA weekly newsletter aiming to make the Supreme Court’s rulings, procedures, and history more accessible to all. Click to read One First, a Substack publication with hundreds of thousands of subscriber... 020
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026E.g.: Florida v. California: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p... Alabama v. California: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p... Texas v. California: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20p... Arizona v. California: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19p... Those are just the ones where Thomas/Alito *wrote.*supremecourt.gov 1627
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026As I've argued in the posts linked above, I think they're wrong, and I think it's a good thing, but their position is by no means an implausible reading of the relevant statute. 170
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026Yup. This is the most likely outcome, by a fair margin. 1150
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026If you'd like some receipts, here are two issues of my newsletter walking through the examples (and the reasons): Old explainer: www.stevevladeck.com/p/38-origina... More recent exemplar: www.stevevladeck.com/p/230-florid... I put the odds of a grant here as well under 5%.stevevladeck.com230. Florida v. CaliforniaJustices Thomas and Alito insist that the Court must hear disputes between two states. Florida v. California is a good example of why I remain unpersuaded. 110813
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026Garnet is absolutely right here. More than that, #SCOTUS has made it clear, over and over again, that it is not going to let states use its "original" jurisdiction to sue other states in contexts in which the underlying question *can* be litigated in the lower federal courts. This is one of those. 9454116
Reposted by Steve VladeckSteve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 01/10/2026As promised, I wrote about what really bothers me about Tuesday's unsigned, unexplained #SCOTUS ruling clearing the way for the resumption of third-country removals with minimal (if any) process. Turns out, it's a lot: www.stevevladeck.com/p/254-four-t...stevevladeck.com254. Four Things That (Really) Bother Me About “D.V.D. III”“Third-country removals” raise a host of difficult procedural and substantive questions. The Supreme Court should have answered those questions *before* greenlighting deportations to torture. 18508196
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 01/10/2026Shoot! I'm sorry for not tagging you!! It's really fantastic. 1110
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 01/10/2026"Had law enforcement and prosecutors engaged more thoroughly with Jane Doe’s original complaint, they might have tempered the vigilantism that would eventually tinge much of the response to the case." This is such a critical point (made by Jessica Winter via @newyorker.com)—and a lesson for others.newyorker.comHow the “Cornell Seven” Rape Case Became a National ScandalThe dismal responses from both the D.A. and the university reveal a larger pattern of institutional carelessness. 15440100
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 01/10/2026For what it's worth, there *is* a sharp circuit divide (everyone against the Fifth and Eighth Circuits). 2111