Steve Vladeck
LightNews LightNews
banner
stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck
@stevevladeck.bsky.social
240K followers 1K following 2.4K 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 · 8h
Is that before or after we get his healthcare plan?
fintwitter.bsky.social FinTwitter @fintwitter.bsky.social · 9h
TRUMP: US TO LAUNCH NEW AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM WITHIN 2–3 WEEKS

Reposted by David R. Miller, Stephen I. Vladeck

fintwitter.bsky.social
FinTwitter @fintwitter.bsky.social · 9h
TRUMP: US TO LAUNCH NEW AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM WITHIN 2–3 WEEKS

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 12h
Full disclosure: I'm co-counsel to the plaintiffs in this case (the victims and their families), and argued on their behalf in the Eleventh Circuit.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 12h
In the civil suit against Saudi Arabia arising out of the 2019 NAS Pensacola shooting, the Eleventh Circuit has *revived* one set of claims—the allegations that Kingdom was grossly negligent in employing, retaining, and training the perpetrator, a Second Lieutenant in the Royal Saudi Air Force:
media.ca11.uscourts.gov

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 14h
Totally fair, and I appreciate the exchange. I just chafe sometimes, perhaps unfairly, as being looped in with folks who don't spend as much time trying to substantiate their analyses. But I totally agree with the bottom line here.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 14h
Not really sure how to respond to this except by encouraging you to check it out and decide for yourself.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
I literally wrote in my newsletter this morning about the possibility that Obergefell still isn't safe, my own view that at least for now it is, and why I totally understand those who aren't as confident:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/191-taking...

So it's not like I'm hiding the context here, but YMMW.
191. Taking Stock After a Wild Week
It's getting increasingly difficult to keep tabs on even the Supreme Court-related (and Court-adjacent) news. Today's issue looks at where things stand (and what to expect next) across six key topics.
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
Maybe go back and read this entire thread, which started with the good news, and then criticized the media for making it seem like this case had a chance?

It's not about "I told you so"; it's about having some faith that at least some of what this Court does can, in fact, be predicted.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
Not in a context remotely like this, no.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
I never said that.

But even if I had, one could also explain, with a fair amount of persuasiveness, why there was a heck of a lot more uncertainty in that case (in which the underlying constitutional question was properly presented) than in Kim Davis's question (in which it absolutely wasn't).

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
Yes, my "mistake" is trying to explain to people why the Court did something that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions. That's definitely an error on my part.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
I'm not trying to bully anyone. I've written literally thousands of words about why *this case* was never going to be the vehicle through which the Court revisited Obergefell, even if there's fair reason to not trust the Court otherwise. There comes a point where that kind of analysis should matter.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
It's not about red lines; I've written at length about the insurmountable procedural obstacles to *reaching* the Obergefell question here.

The credibility of experts ought to turn on their ability to provide persuasive explanations for their predictions, not on the fact that someone else was wrong.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
Well then what's *your* explanation for the denial here?

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
bsky.app/profile/stev...

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
bsky.app/profile/stev...

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
Because there were insurmountable obstacles to even reaching the Obergefell question in this case:

www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
173. Justice Kavanaugh and the Equities
Thursday's ruling in the NetChoice case appears to suggest that one of the key justices is either being inconsistent or completely hypocritical in how he is voting on emergency applications.
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
I wrote about it here:

www.stevevladeck.com/i/171200191/...
173. Justice Kavanaugh and the Equities
Thursday's ruling in the NetChoice case appears to suggest that one of the key justices is either being inconsistent or completely hypocritical in how he is voting on emergency applications.
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
"Some other people got something wrong, therefore no one knows what they're talking about."

Okay then.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 15h
This is not a surprise to anyone who was closely following this case. It *ought* to be, however, a moment to reflect upon the responsibility (or not) of media outlets that, deliberately or not, led folks to believe that a grant was a serious possibility (which it never was).

Reposted by Steve Peers

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 16h
#BREAKING: Over no public dissents, #SCOTUS denies Kim Davis's petition asking the justices to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (which recognized federal constitutional protections for same-sex marriage):

www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
www.supremecourt.gov

Reposted by Anna O. Law

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 16h
From SNAP to tariffs to passports to the fate of Obergefell to the deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois to the Justice Department's "war" on the lower federal courts, there are ... just a few things going on.

Today's "One First" tries to catch folks up on the most important developments:
191. Taking Stock After a Wild Week
It's getting increasingly difficult to keep tabs on even the Supreme Court-related (and Court-adjacent) news. Today's issue looks at where things stand (and what to expect next) across six key topics.
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 17h
It's not an extension, as I explain here:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/191-taking...
191. Taking Stock After a Wild Week
It's getting increasingly difficult to keep tabs on even the Supreme Court-related (and Court-adjacent) news. Today's issue looks at where things stand (and what to expect next) across six key topics.
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 17h
An early Monday morning order from Justice Jackson in the SNAP case—ordering DOJ to file any further briefs responding to last night's First Circuit ruling by 4:00 this afternoon, and allowing the plaintiffs to respond by 8:00 a.m. tomorrow.

For how we got here: www.stevevladeck.com/p/191-taking...
An order from Justice Jackson ordering briefs on the latest developments in the SNAP case.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 17h
I linked to the earlier explanation. She didn’t preserve the issue below; the case is not about a state enforcing a marriage ban; she could lose even if Obergefell gets overturned; etc.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 1d
1) The First Circuit may not have ruled as quickly without what she wrote on Friday;

2) Had she balked Friday, the full #SCOTUS might've issued an open-ended pause on the lower-court rulings; now, that pause expires Tuesday night;

3) Now, SCOTUS has to do *something* between now and Tuesday night.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 1d
I see virtually no possible connection there.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 1d
That's basically what I say in Monday morning's newsletter.

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 1d
Exactly this, as I suggested Friday night:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf
190. SNAP WTF?
A very quick explainer on why Justice Jackson issued an "administrative stay" in the SNAP case late on Friday night, and on what's likely to happen next
www.stevevladeck.com

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 1d
It's not about legality; it's about whether the government can be *compelled* to use other pools of money that they're *allowed* to transfer from. There's nothing *illegal* here; the question is whether courts can *mandate* what's otherwise an exercise of discretion when it's a remedy for defiance.