Sign in

Steve Vladeck

@stevevladeck.bsky.social
252K followers 1.1K following 3.8K 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 · 13h
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home Alone
201536
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13h
The 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.com
Colbert Savages NSA And Rep. Mike Rogers In 'See No Evil' Segment
Colbert Savages NSA and Rep. Mike Rogers in 'See No Evil' Segment
1132683
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13h
(Different hearing.)
2120
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13h
Did you see the link in my post?
050
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13h
Umm, *I was the “somebody”! www.c-span.org/clip/house-c...
342367392
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 17h
D.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.com
Rachel A. Shelden — The Political Supreme Court: A Forgotten History - with Steve Vladeck — at Conn Ave
Rachel 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
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 22h
As the post argues in detail.
040
Reposted by Steve Vladeck
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026
The 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.com
Bonus 256: The Original “First” Amendment
The 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 · 23h
As the first paragraph of the post notes…
020
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 23h
That link isn’t live yet, but it should be shortly.
0340
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 23h
The 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.gov
Search
616040
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026
As 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 · 08/10/2026
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):
4279825
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026
Which is why the post argues for a version of its text, not its literal text.
1120
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 08/10/2026
The 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.com
Bonus 256: The Original “First” Amendment
The 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 · 08/10/2026
H to the no.
0100
Reposted by Steve Vladeck
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.
1133727755
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 07/10/2026
Nothing 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 Vladeck
Mark Joseph Stern @mjsdc.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
However good you think this is going to be, it’s better. Steve just has Alito dead to rights.
11728135
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Too late!: bsky.app/profile/stev...
0270
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
We're all just lesser white men.
4350
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Congratulations! Can't wait to read it.
131
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Y'all...
1131536
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
Is 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 · 06/10/2026
Agreed. 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 · 06/10/2026
The food was terrible—and such small portions!
0140
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
See also: bsky.app/profile/stev...
526915
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
There are better ones, e.g.: bsky.app/profile/stev...
1530215
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 06/10/2026
I'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 · 06/10/2026
See 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 · 06/10/2026
I've never understood what the response is to Part V of Justice Ginsburg's dissent.
130
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.
1133727755
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
2353120
Reposted by Steve Vladeck
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 05/10/2026
After 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.com
255. Closing the Book on OT2025
As 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 · 05/10/2026
After 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.com
255. Closing the Book on OT2025
As 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 · 03/10/2026
Maybe 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 · 03/10/2026
Which 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 · 02/10/2026
Yes, 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 · 02/10/2026
There 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 · 02/10/2026
They'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 · 02/10/2026
There'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.com
One First
A 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 · 02/10/2026
E.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 · 02/10/2026
As 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 · 02/10/2026
Yup. This is the most likely outcome, by a fair margin.
1150
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 02/10/2026
If 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.com
230. Florida v. California
Justices 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 · 02/10/2026
Garnet 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 Vladeck
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 01/10/2026
As 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.com
254. 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 · 01/10/2026
Shoot! 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.com
How the “Cornell Seven” Rape Case Became a National Scandal
The dismal responses from both the D.A. and the university reveal a larger pattern of institutional carelessness.
15440100
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 01/10/2026
For what it's worth, there *is* a sharp circuit divide (everyone against the Fifth and Eighth Circuits).
2111