Alyssa Negvesky
@alyssanegvesky.bsky.social
Georgetown Law 2025
Texan in DC
Ask me about my dogs
Texan in DC
Ask me about my dogs
If you haven’t subscribed yet, you should.
Sometimes there are funny stories. Sometimes there are troubling stories that make you worry about humanity. And sometimes, it’s just Steve getting roasted in the comments.
Either way, it’s never boring. 🥳
Sometimes there are funny stories. Sometimes there are troubling stories that make you worry about humanity. And sometimes, it’s just Steve getting roasted in the comments.
Either way, it’s never boring. 🥳
Somehow, today is the third anniversary of "One First."
I wrote a little piece about why @ksvesq.bsky.social and I started the newsletter back in November 2022; how it's evolved since then (umm, a lot!); and our plans for the future.
Even if you don't already subscribe, I hope you'll check it out!
I wrote a little piece about why @ksvesq.bsky.social and I started the newsletter back in November 2022; how it's evolved since then (umm, a lot!); and our plans for the future.
Even if you don't already subscribe, I hope you'll check it out!
192. "One First" Turns Three!
A look back on the first three years of "One First"; a note of gratitude; and some thoughts on what's next for the newsletter
www.stevevladeck.com
November 11, 2025 at 11:36 PM
If you haven’t subscribed yet, you should.
Sometimes there are funny stories. Sometimes there are troubling stories that make you worry about humanity. And sometimes, it’s just Steve getting roasted in the comments.
Either way, it’s never boring. 🥳
Sometimes there are funny stories. Sometimes there are troubling stories that make you worry about humanity. And sometimes, it’s just Steve getting roasted in the comments.
Either way, it’s never boring. 🥳
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
Trying to figure out what #SCOTUS just did with #SNAP, and why Justice Jackson temporarily froze the district court's ruling?
Via "One First," me on what's going on—and why I think Jackson's move was savvy, notwithstanding the awful circumstances that forced it:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf
Via "One First," me on what's going on—and why I think Jackson's move was savvy, notwithstanding the awful circumstances that forced it:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf
190. SNAP WTF?
A very quick explainer on what (and 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
November 8, 2025 at 3:34 AM
Trying to figure out what #SCOTUS just did with #SNAP, and why Justice Jackson temporarily froze the district court's ruling?
Via "One First," me on what's going on—and why I think Jackson's move was savvy, notwithstanding the awful circumstances that forced it:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf
Via "One First," me on what's going on—and why I think Jackson's move was savvy, notwithstanding the awful circumstances that forced it:
www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf
My husband took the bar last year and today when I got my results, tell me why my first reaction was “DANG IT HE BEAT ME BY 4 POINTS”
(yes we both passed comfortably but I’m still mad)
(yes we both passed comfortably but I’m still mad)
October 31, 2025 at 1:43 PM
My husband took the bar last year and today when I got my results, tell me why my first reaction was “DANG IT HE BEAT ME BY 4 POINTS”
(yes we both passed comfortably but I’m still mad)
(yes we both passed comfortably but I’m still mad)
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
There's a longstanding debate over the value of law professor amicus briefs at #SCOTUS.
I'll just note that the additional briefing the Court ordered today in the Illinois National Guard case was in direct response to an amicus brief filed by ... a law professor (@martylederman.bsky.social).
I'll just note that the additional briefing the Court ordered today in the Illinois National Guard case was in direct response to an amicus brief filed by ... a law professor (@martylederman.bsky.social).
October 30, 2025 at 3:32 AM
There's a longstanding debate over the value of law professor amicus briefs at #SCOTUS.
I'll just note that the additional briefing the Court ordered today in the Illinois National Guard case was in direct response to an amicus brief filed by ... a law professor (@martylederman.bsky.social).
I'll just note that the additional briefing the Court ordered today in the Illinois National Guard case was in direct response to an amicus brief filed by ... a law professor (@martylederman.bsky.social).
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
New paper from me offering a holistic assessment of #SCOTUS's behavior on Trump-related emergency applications thus far:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
TL;DR: The ultimate theme of the decisions is a majority bent on preserving *their* supremacy, as such—which is likely to only be self-defeating.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
TL;DR: The ultimate theme of the decisions is a majority bent on preserving *their* supremacy, as such—which is likely to only be self-defeating.
October 29, 2025 at 1:20 PM
New paper from me offering a holistic assessment of #SCOTUS's behavior on Trump-related emergency applications thus far:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
TL;DR: The ultimate theme of the decisions is a majority bent on preserving *their* supremacy, as such—which is likely to only be self-defeating.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
TL;DR: The ultimate theme of the decisions is a majority bent on preserving *their* supremacy, as such—which is likely to only be self-defeating.
Never been so proud to be a fellow Georgetown law grad 😭 Been rooting for Ashley since day one, so glad she pulled out the W!!!!
September 29, 2025 at 2:25 PM
Never been so proud to be a fellow Georgetown law grad 😭 Been rooting for Ashley since day one, so glad she pulled out the W!!!!
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
Today's bonus "One First" goes deep into Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in the ICE roving patrols case:
"If this is the kind of analysis that’s driving the justices’ votes in the other Trump-related cases, perhaps it really is understandable why the Court is so often declining to explain itself."
"If this is the kind of analysis that’s driving the justices’ votes in the other Trump-related cases, perhaps it really is understandable why the Court is so often declining to explain itself."
Bonus 177: A Closer Look at Justice Kavanaugh's ICE Raids Opinion
Walking through the only opinion written in support of Monday's Supreme Court stay in the ICE roving arrests case helps to highlight *how* the Court may be stacking the deck in Trump-related cases.
www.stevevladeck.com
September 11, 2025 at 11:48 AM
Today's bonus "One First" goes deep into Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in the ICE roving patrols case:
"If this is the kind of analysis that’s driving the justices’ votes in the other Trump-related cases, perhaps it really is understandable why the Court is so often declining to explain itself."
"If this is the kind of analysis that’s driving the justices’ votes in the other Trump-related cases, perhaps it really is understandable why the Court is so often declining to explain itself."
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
settings > content & media > autoplay video & gifs = off
September 10, 2025 at 6:59 PM
settings > content & media > autoplay video & gifs = off
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
For today's bonus "One First," I wrote about the increasingly noisy claim that legal constraints don't really matter in the current moment—why it's utterly belied by what's actually happening on the ground (and by what law can actually *do*); and why, in many respects, it's affirmatively dangerous:
Bonus 176: Law, Lawlessness, and Doomerism
Law is not—and never will be—a perfect constraint on government action. But claims that legal limits have become wholly irrelevant to the current administration are not just wrong; they're dangerous.
www.stevevladeck.com
September 4, 2025 at 11:54 AM
For today's bonus "One First," I wrote about the increasingly noisy claim that legal constraints don't really matter in the current moment—why it's utterly belied by what's actually happening on the ground (and by what law can actually *do*); and why, in many respects, it's affirmatively dangerous:
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
I am once again asking for everything to stop happening thanks
can everything just stop….happening. plz
September 4, 2025 at 1:56 AM
I am once again asking for everything to stop happening thanks
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
me as a legal journalist: ok wait omg
September 4, 2025 at 1:58 AM
me as a legal journalist: ok wait omg
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
Didn’t have “figuring out how to stream a football podcast on my TV” on my bingo card, but life is weird that way.
August 13, 2025 at 10:49 PM
Didn’t have “figuring out how to stream a football podcast on my TV” on my bingo card, but life is weird that way.
A very relevant post for this particular morning
To what extent should law school classes be focused on the law on the ground as compared to the law on the books?
Today’s bonus issue of “One First” looks at this age-old pedagogical question—and how it’s taken on special significance (& importance) in the fraught moment in which we find ourselves:
Today’s bonus issue of “One First” looks at this age-old pedagogical question—and how it’s taken on special significance (& importance) in the fraught moment in which we find ourselves:
Bonus 172: Legal Pedagogy and the Dual State
The beginning of the new academic year raises an acute version of an age-old question: how much should law professors teach the law on the ground versus (or in addition to) the law on the books?
www.stevevladeck.com
August 14, 2025 at 1:25 PM
A very relevant post for this particular morning
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
What Mark said.
It's understandable why so many are so wary of #SCOTUS. But even *if* there were five votes to revisit Obergefell (and I'm skeptical), this just *isn't* the case in which even those justices would want to do it.
It's understandable why so many are so wary of #SCOTUS. But even *if* there were five votes to revisit Obergefell (and I'm skeptical), this just *isn't* the case in which even those justices would want to do it.
The Supreme Court is extraordinarily unlikely to use this case as a vehicle to overturn marriage equality. The merits of Obergefell aren't even the central legal issue in the case. I understand the fear, but this is not a serious request. abcnews.go.com/Politics/sup...
Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling
10 years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to all same-sex couples, it will consider whether to take a case asking it to overturn the decision.
abcnews.go.com
August 12, 2025 at 2:14 PM
What Mark said.
It's understandable why so many are so wary of #SCOTUS. But even *if* there were five votes to revisit Obergefell (and I'm skeptical), this just *isn't* the case in which even those justices would want to do it.
It's understandable why so many are so wary of #SCOTUS. But even *if* there were five votes to revisit Obergefell (and I'm skeptical), this just *isn't* the case in which even those justices would want to do it.
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
Two things can be true:
1) The President has legal authority over the D.C. police and the D.C. National Guard that he doesn't have *anywhere else* in the country; &
2) Even if this doesn't set a legal precedent, it sets an ominous *political* precedent for pretextually overriding local government.
1) The President has legal authority over the D.C. police and the D.C. National Guard that he doesn't have *anywhere else* in the country; &
2) Even if this doesn't set a legal precedent, it sets an ominous *political* precedent for pretextually overriding local government.
August 11, 2025 at 3:32 PM
Two things can be true:
1) The President has legal authority over the D.C. police and the D.C. National Guard that he doesn't have *anywhere else* in the country; &
2) Even if this doesn't set a legal precedent, it sets an ominous *political* precedent for pretextually overriding local government.
1) The President has legal authority over the D.C. police and the D.C. National Guard that he doesn't have *anywhere else* in the country; &
2) Even if this doesn't set a legal precedent, it sets an ominous *political* precedent for pretextually overriding local government.
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
Just tapping this sign, for no particular reason.
This couldn't be a less important (or more pedantic) point, but when folks like me refer to #SCOTUS's "shadow docket," we don't *just* mean emergency applications.
The shadow docket comprises *everything* the Court does besides signed rulings handed down at the end of plenary review.
As you were.
The shadow docket comprises *everything* the Court does besides signed rulings handed down at the end of plenary review.
As you were.
August 8, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Just tapping this sign, for no particular reason.
Three week update: I took the July 2021 multiple choice portion of the bar as a practice test and YEP I CAN CONFIRM THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED 👍🏼 😅
So… how does one study for the bar when all of the laws are changing? Asking for a friend (it’s me, I’m the friend) ((looking at you, nationwide injunctions test!!))
July 19, 2025 at 1:51 AM
Three week update: I took the July 2021 multiple choice portion of the bar as a practice test and YEP I CAN CONFIRM THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED 👍🏼 😅
Bar prep in 2 photos (i.e., after bombing a secured transactions practice essay vs. after killing a civ pro practice essay two hours later)
July 19, 2025 at 1:38 AM
Bar prep in 2 photos (i.e., after bombing a secured transactions practice essay vs. after killing a civ pro practice essay two hours later)
A little over 2 weeks out from the DC bar and I’m now understanding why Virginia requiring business attire to take the bar is so wild. WHY
July 12, 2025 at 2:05 PM
A little over 2 weeks out from the DC bar and I’m now understanding why Virginia requiring business attire to take the bar is so wild. WHY
So… how does one study for the bar when all of the laws are changing? Asking for a friend (it’s me, I’m the friend) ((looking at you, nationwide injunctions test!!))
June 27, 2025 at 9:01 PM
So… how does one study for the bar when all of the laws are changing? Asking for a friend (it’s me, I’m the friend) ((looking at you, nationwide injunctions test!!))
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
Kagan apologizes for citing herself in Paxton dissent ❤️
June 27, 2025 at 6:06 PM
Kagan apologizes for citing herself in Paxton dissent ❤️
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
Sanctions for anyone who doesn’t link to the opinion or the indictment
June 6, 2025 at 9:14 PM
Sanctions for anyone who doesn’t link to the opinion or the indictment
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
A universal injunction against late afternoon legal news
June 6, 2025 at 9:13 PM
A universal injunction against late afternoon legal news
Reposted by Alyssa Negvesky
Apparently, no one got it.
Guess they haven’t read it—just like @ksvesq.bsky.social.
(📷: @musicadamt.bsky.social)
Guess they haven’t read it—just like @ksvesq.bsky.social.
(📷: @musicadamt.bsky.social)
June 5, 2025 at 12:47 AM
Apparently, no one got it.
Guess they haven’t read it—just like @ksvesq.bsky.social.
(📷: @musicadamt.bsky.social)
Guess they haven’t read it—just like @ksvesq.bsky.social.
(📷: @musicadamt.bsky.social)