Steve Vladeck
LightNews LightNews
banner
stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
250K followers 1K following 2.5K posts

@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 .. more

Videos

Stephen Isaiah Vladeck is an American legal scholar. He is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he specializes in the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice, especially with relation to the prosecution of war crimes. Vladeck has commented on the legality of the United States' use of extrajudicial detention and torture, and is a regular contributor to CNN. .. more

Political science 64%
Law 14%
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · Apr 4
I’m really excited about this — and about the chance to work with Allison Lorentzen and the entire @vikingbooks.bsky.social team!
ksvesq.bsky.social KSV @ksvesq.bsky.social · Apr 4
The best guy I know just sold his (second) book and I COULD NOT BE MORE PROUD!

“The Court We Need” — scheduled for Fall 2026 release. More important than ever.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d
I’m on vacation this week, but will have much more about this ruling and what it means in next Monday’s “One First”:

stevevladeck.substack.com
stevevladeck.substack.com

Reposted by Anna O. Law, Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, David R. Miller

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d
Over public dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, #SCOTUS refuses to allow President Trump to deploy federalized National Guard troops into and around Chicago.

This is a major loss for President Trump, even if, per Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, it’s temporary and on narrow legal Q:
www.supremecourt.gov

Reposted by Richard S.J. Tol, Ann Bartow

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 3d
“We couldn’t report on the sinking of the Titanic until we spoke to Captain Smith.”
justinbaragona.bsky.social Justin Baragona @justinbaragona.bsky.social · 4d
Weiss concluded: “We need to be able to make every effort to get the principals on the record and on camera. To me, our viewers come first, not a listing schedule or anything else. And that is my North Star, and I hope it's the North Star of every person in this newsroom.”

Reposted by Adrian Daub, Jacob T. Levy, Aurélien Mondon , and 4 more

justinbaragona.bsky.social
Justin Baragona @justinbaragona.bsky.social · 4d
Weiss concluded: “We need to be able to make every effort to get the principals on the record and on camera. To me, our viewers come first, not a listing schedule or anything else. And that is my North Star, and I hope it's the North Star of every person in this newsroom.”

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 4d
The question isn’t about the need for reform; it’s about whether the reforms should aim to fix the Court or kneecap it.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 4d
The whole point of the post is that there’s a species of progressive #SCOTUS criticism that is seeking to reform the institution *without* appeasing it.

Reposted by Samuel Moyn, Ann Bartow, Kate Jackson

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 4d
"Pulling the Supreme Court back from the cliff is something progressives should view as far preferable to the alternative—where it may not just be the Court that gets pushed over the edge and into oblivion, but our entire constitutional (and democratic) order."

Me in today's issue of "One First":
198. Progressive Judicial Institutionalism
There's important daylight between those who are critical of the present degree of judicial power in the United States in general and those who are critical of the current Supreme Court, specifically.
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 6d
(Sorry the image appears twice.)

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 6d
Over no public dissents, #SCOTUS *denies* Trump administration's application for a stay in the immigration judges case (about whether the dispute should be in a district court or before the Merit Systems Protection Board).

It's the Trump administration's first real loss at #SCOTUS since April.
Image of Supreme Court Order that reads: The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied. At this stage, the Government has not demonstrated that it will suffer irreparable harm without a stay. This denial is without prejudice to a reapplication if the District Court commences discovery proceedings before the disposition of the Government’s forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari. Cf. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U. S. 367, 385 (2004). The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d
Maybe, but that wasn’t the point to which I was responding.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d
The declarations might bolster the case for the validity of the underlying proclamation; they don’t do anything to what #SCOTUS already held back in April with respect to what due process requires in individual cases.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d
What made internment especially odious was that it wasn’t individualized. The Supreme Court has insisted on individualized review here.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d
A reminder of how we got here:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/150-the-st...
150. The State of Play in the Alien Enemy Act Litigation
A series of outwardly inconsistent developments in different courts in the Alien Enemy Act cases underscores the difficulties that litigants challenging Trump policies face without nationwide relief.
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d
#SCOTUS hasn't resolved whether the President's *invocation* of the AEA is lawful, but it has held, unanimously, that individuals detained under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their detention before they can be removed. That's why the AEA can't be used this way...

Reposted by Anna O. Law, Steve Peers, David H. Kaye , and 7 more

jamalgreene.bsky.social
Jamal Greene @jamalgreene.bsky.social · 7d
NB: When I, a professor of law, profess that an act is unlawful, I am not doing it to inform the lawbreaker, but rather to inform you, the reader.

So the question “what, like you think he cares?” is inapposite. The question is whether *you* care. I think you should, which is why I bother.

Reposted by Steve Peers

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 7d
"And may the odds be ever in your favor..."
factpostnews.bsky.social FactPost @factpostnews.bsky.social · 8d
Trump announces an "unprecedented four-day athletic event" with "one young man and one young woman from each state and territory"

Reposted by Mark A. Lemley, David Dunning, Mark D. White , and 13 more

factpostnews.bsky.social
FactPost @factpostnews.bsky.social · 8d
Trump announces an "unprecedented four-day athletic event" with "one young man and one young woman from each state and territory"

Reposted by Steve Peers, Stephen I. Vladeck

craigxmartin.bsky.social
Craig Martin @craigxmartin.bsky.social · 8d
Great post by @stevevladeck.bsky.social on the anniversary of Korematsu, explaining why the legal justifications and rationalizations for unlawful action is often more damaging to the rule of law than the action itself.

Necessity, Legality, and the Rule of Law
open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

hearsay.bsky.social
Hearsay @hearsay.bsky.social · 10d
This post from @stevevladeck.bsky.social about the shadow docket is excellent. It's from a few months ago, but I continue to think about it. Highlighted a money quote below.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/183-the-mi...
[M]aybe 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?

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 10d
I'm grateful to my co-counsel—especially Don Nolan, Tom Routh, and Tom Ellis from Nolan Law Group, and Brad Stoll from Katzman, Lampert, & Stoll—for their camaraderie, collegiality, and feedback; and to one of my awesome Georgetown research assistants, Mackenzie Webb, for her help with the research!

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 10d
I spend some of my time moonlighting as an actual appellate lawyer, and just had the privilege of filing the opening brief on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants in our appeal of the district court's dismissal of a lawsuit arising out of a 2018 Puerto Rico Air National Guard plane crash in Georgia:
GM -- CA5 -- Opening Brief -- FILED.pdf | Powered by Box
georgetown.box.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 10d
Congratulations, Rachel! Can’t wait to see this in print!

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 10d
Indeed:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/197-the-su...
197. The Supreme Court's Annie Hall Problem
Charges that Supreme Court critics are "schizophrenic" because they're making procedural *and* substantive critiques of the Court's behavior are missing the possibility that both claims are legitimate
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 11d
When did SCOTUS "start[] providing explanations for its shadow docket orders," and which critics said "they're too short"?

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 11d
Yeah, I already updated the post to add a century. Math is hard.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 11d
Today's "One First" explains why the "Annie Hall problem" (the idea that critics will never be satisfied by anything the subject of their criticism does) is an especially inapt charge against those who are independently critical of both *what* #SCOTUS is doing in its rulings and *how* it's doing it:
197. The Supreme Court's Annie Hall Problem
Charges that Supreme Court critics are "schizophrenic" because they're making procedural *and* substantive critiques of the Court's behavior are missing the possibility that both claims are legitimate
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 13d
I was making an analogy, but ok.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 14d
After. Hence this morning’s 7 am TRO.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 14d
"The jury verdict from 10 years ago contains a scrivener's error insofar as it states that the defendant was not guilty. We are changing that, nunc pro tunc, to guilty."

Yeah, no.
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social Aaron Reichlin-Melnick @reichlinmelnick.bsky.social · 14d
It is not! A “scrivener’s error” is for things like fixing typos or very minor non-material errors, not retroactively adding a deportation order that doesn’t current exist!
goaldee.bsky.social goaldee.bsky.social @goaldee.bsky.social · 14d
Is "correcting" a previous order like this a real thing?

Reposted by Kim L. Scheppele, David S. Cohen, James Goodwin

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 14d
The President of the United States has the exact same power to pardon a state-court conviction that you or I have—which is to say, none.