Mark Joseph Stern
@mjsdc.bsky.social
Senior writer at Slate covering courts and the law. Co-host of the Amicus podcast. Dad.
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
This really is the culmination of the unitary executive theory — the entire cabinet must profess servile fealty to the personality of one man & forswear any notion that their office entails responsibilities to the American people or concern for the public good beyond servicing his whims
Ladies and gentlemen, the head of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division
December 29, 2025 at 3:51 PM
This really is the culmination of the unitary executive theory — the entire cabinet must profess servile fealty to the personality of one man & forswear any notion that their office entails responsibilities to the American people or concern for the public good beyond servicing his whims
Trump’s domestic deployment of the National Guard marks an area where he has diverged from the consensus of the conservative legal movement, with no plausible footing in Federalist Society dogma. And it is extremely telling that SCOTUS finally drew the line here. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Trump Just Faced the Biggest Supreme Court Defeat of His Second Term So Far
But another battle looms in the distance.
slate.com
December 23, 2025 at 10:53 PM
Trump’s domestic deployment of the National Guard marks an area where he has diverged from the consensus of the conservative legal movement, with no plausible footing in Federalist Society dogma. And it is extremely telling that SCOTUS finally drew the line here. slate.com/news-and-pol...
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
![The Government asked this Court to stay the District Court's order. After the response and reply were filed, JUSTICE BARRETT referred the application to the Court. We directed the parties to file supplemental letter briefs on an issue that the District Court had addressed but the parties' initial briefs had not: the meaning of the term "regular forces" in §12406(3). In its supplemental brief, the Government argues that the term refers to civilian law enforcement officers, such as those employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Federal Protective Service.
Respondents, echoing the District Court, maintain that the term refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary.
We conclude that the term "regular forces" in §12406(3) likely refers to the regular forces of the United States mili-tary. This interpretation means that to call the Guard into active federal service under §12406(3), the President must be "unable" with the regular military "to execute the laws of the United States." Because the statute requires an assessment of the military's ability to execute the laws, it likely applies only where the military could legally execute the laws. Such circumstances are exceptional: Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the military is prohibited from "execut[ing] the laws" "except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress."
18 U. S. C. §1385. So before the President can federalize the Guard under §12406(3), he likely must have statutory or constitutional authority to execute the laws with the regular military and must be "unable" with those forces to perform that function.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreiftbhzwvn3vgwhqsi7k2paizvdw4t26ailljvovso3chqupnmj364@jpeg)
December 23, 2025 at 8:16 PM
NEW: By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court blocks Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago to assist immigration agents. A majority holds that he likely lacks authority to do so. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
This means the VA won't cover abortions EVEN in the case of rape, incest, or serious threat to the health of the patient.
The DOJ memo was authored by Josh Craddock, one of the chief legal advocates for fetal personhood, i.e. imposing a nationwide abortion ban through the courts.
The DOJ memo was authored by Josh Craddock, one of the chief legal advocates for fetal personhood, i.e. imposing a nationwide abortion ban through the courts.
🚨🚨 SCOOP @ms.now : The Department of Veteran Affairs has quietly implemented its abortion ban following a DOJ memo issued last week.
This will affect 9 million veterans and their dependents, and has been a long time coming: It was outlined in Project 2025.
Read/share 👇
This will affect 9 million veterans and their dependents, and has been a long time coming: It was outlined in Project 2025.
Read/share 👇
Department of Veterans Affairs quietly implements abortion ban
A VA spokesperson confirmed to MS NOW that the ban was in place following a Department of Justice memo issued last week.
www.ms.now
December 23, 2025 at 7:18 PM
This means the VA won't cover abortions EVEN in the case of rape, incest, or serious threat to the health of the patient.
The DOJ memo was authored by Josh Craddock, one of the chief legal advocates for fetal personhood, i.e. imposing a nationwide abortion ban through the courts.
The DOJ memo was authored by Josh Craddock, one of the chief legal advocates for fetal personhood, i.e. imposing a nationwide abortion ban through the courts.
A plea: It is 2025. The term "mail-in ballots" is hopelessly stuck in previous decades. There is absolutely no need for the addition of "-in." We all know the ballots are mailed "in." Please just call them "mail ballots." That is what they are. Ballots returned through the mail. MAIL BALLOTS!
December 23, 2025 at 3:59 PM
A plea: It is 2025. The term "mail-in ballots" is hopelessly stuck in previous decades. There is absolutely no need for the addition of "-in." We all know the ballots are mailed "in." Please just call them "mail ballots." That is what they are. Ballots returned through the mail. MAIL BALLOTS!
Trump's DOJ is trying to overturn D.C.'s ban on assault weapons ... while claiming to be SO concerned about crime in the District that it must flood our streets with National Guard troops.
I think a president worried about D.C. crime would not be trying to arm criminals with especially lethal guns?
I think a president worried about D.C. crime would not be trying to arm criminals with especially lethal guns?
BREAKING: The Trump administration is suing D.C. over its ban on semi-automatic (AR-15) weapons.
DOJ's Civil Rights Division under Harmeet Dhillon is seeking a court ruling that D.C.'s law "prohibiting registration of the AR-15 by law-abiding citizens violates the Second Amendment."
DOJ's Civil Rights Division under Harmeet Dhillon is seeking a court ruling that D.C.'s law "prohibiting registration of the AR-15 by law-abiding citizens violates the Second Amendment."
December 22, 2025 at 8:48 PM
Trump's DOJ is trying to overturn D.C.'s ban on assault weapons ... while claiming to be SO concerned about crime in the District that it must flood our streets with National Guard troops.
I think a president worried about D.C. crime would not be trying to arm criminals with especially lethal guns?
I think a president worried about D.C. crime would not be trying to arm criminals with especially lethal guns?
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
Interesting to consider that if you were to go and deface the Kennedy center by removing Trump’s name, you’d be arrested and charged with a crime, but your act would be no more unlawful than what they’re doing right now.
NEWS: They're adding Trump's name to the Kennedy Center building right now. www.washingtonpost.com/entertainmen...
Kennedy Center adds Trump’s name to building
The signage change follows a vote by the board of trustees to rename the performing arts complex the Trump Kennedy Center.
www.washingtonpost.com
December 19, 2025 at 5:33 PM
Interesting to consider that if you were to go and deface the Kennedy center by removing Trump’s name, you’d be arrested and charged with a crime, but your act would be no more unlawful than what they’re doing right now.
New: The Supreme Court DENIES the Trump administration's request to halt further fact-finding in a legal dispute over speech restrictions that the Trump administration has imposed against immigration judges. Says the government hasn't shown irreparable harm yet.
December 19, 2025 at 6:03 PM
New: The Supreme Court DENIES the Trump administration's request to halt further fact-finding in a legal dispute over speech restrictions that the Trump administration has imposed against immigration judges. Says the government hasn't shown irreparable harm yet.
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
A quick thread on Republicans packing state supreme courts in the past 10 years. They hate voters and democracy. 🧵
👀 Utah Republicans are threatening to expand the size of their state supreme court from 5 to 7 so they can get a favorable outcome in their redistricting appeal in time for 2026.
Ds across the country can take note especially if Ds get back in control of Cong/WH again.
www.abc4.com/news/politic...
Ds across the country can take note especially if Ds get back in control of Cong/WH again.
www.abc4.com/news/politic...
December 18, 2025 at 7:38 PM
A quick thread on Republicans packing state supreme courts in the past 10 years. They hate voters and democracy. 🧵
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
“The president doesn’t know and never will,” she told me. “He doesn’t know the details of these smallish agencies.”
-Susie Wiles on the destruction of USAID, which has led to 600,000 deaths, including ~400,000 children, in the last year alone.
www.vanityfair.com/news/story/t...
-Susie Wiles on the destruction of USAID, which has led to 600,000 deaths, including ~400,000 children, in the last year alone.
www.vanityfair.com/news/story/t...
Susie Wiles Talks About The First Year of Trump’s Second Term (Part 1 of 2)
In the first half of ‘Vanity Fair’’s interview with Susie Wiles, the chief of staff discusses Elon Musk’s DOGE disaster, the FBI’s “incredible job” investigating January 6, and how Trump once berated ...
www.vanityfair.com
December 16, 2025 at 2:50 PM
“The president doesn’t know and never will,” she told me. “He doesn’t know the details of these smallish agencies.”
-Susie Wiles on the destruction of USAID, which has led to 600,000 deaths, including ~400,000 children, in the last year alone.
www.vanityfair.com/news/story/t...
-Susie Wiles on the destruction of USAID, which has led to 600,000 deaths, including ~400,000 children, in the last year alone.
www.vanityfair.com/news/story/t...
Really great piece. It's pretty revealing that the strongest defense of the term "interim docket" to describe the shadow docket is basically: Yeah, we know it's not descriptively accurate in a lot of cases, but we're annoyed by people who say "shadow docket."
That's not even an argument!
That's not even an argument!
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
December 16, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Really great piece. It's pretty revealing that the strongest defense of the term "interim docket" to describe the shadow docket is basically: Yeah, we know it's not descriptively accurate in a lot of cases, but we're annoyed by people who say "shadow docket."
That's not even an argument!
That's not even an argument!
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
I'm sorry but Judge Thapar's concurrence/dissent show one absolutely bonkers way to do constitutional law!
December 15, 2025 at 11:25 PM
I'm sorry but Judge Thapar's concurrence/dissent show one absolutely bonkers way to do constitutional law!
Very interesting: Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu (who's retiring soon) won't apply equal protection to invalidate discrimination against the poor because she's afraid of giving SCOTUS an opportunity to further weaken the 14th Amendment. Remarkably candid. www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...
![YU, J. (dissenting) — I agree with the majority’s summation of federal equal
protection law and its limited application to the issue before us. However, I cannot
overlook the inherent unfairness of disregarding the economic value of community
service used to pay legal financial obligations in Blake1 cases. Thus, I must dissent
from the majority in result.
Nevertheless, I cannot join the analysis proffered by the dissent of Justice
Mungia. I am not persuaded that current federal due process and equal protection
doctrines fit the fact pattern before us, and I am reluctant to attempt to expand
these doctrines at this time. Doing so risks weakening established jurisprudence
that is already being weakened, as the United States Supreme Court “retreat[s]
from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most.” United States v.
Skrmetti, 605 U.S. 495, 579, 145 S. Ct. 1816, 222 L. Ed. 2d 136 (2025)
(Sotomayor, J., dissenting).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:6h7b2i6ttw3l4t7pvbvxdith/bafkreigdg42uobfcz47exzh545urdhsh3j55firp64l2smr632kvnhme6a@jpeg)
December 15, 2025 at 7:41 PM
Very interesting: Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu (who's retiring soon) won't apply equal protection to invalidate discrimination against the poor because she's afraid of giving SCOTUS an opportunity to further weaken the 14th Amendment. Remarkably candid. www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf...
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
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
December 15, 2025 at 12:50 PM
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:
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
Beyond disrespect, many of those people were supposedly fired for the sin of implying Kirk contributed to his own death, which Trump is doing here with Reiner.
Just a reminder that at least 600 Americans were fired for failing to show sufficient respect after Charlie Kirk's murder.
utterly incapable of grace
December 15, 2025 at 3:17 PM
Beyond disrespect, many of those people were supposedly fired for the sin of implying Kirk contributed to his own death, which Trump is doing here with Reiner.
Just a reminder that at least 600 Americans were fired for failing to show sufficient respect after Charlie Kirk's murder.
December 15, 2025 at 3:01 PM
Just a reminder that at least 600 Americans were fired for failing to show sufficient respect after Charlie Kirk's murder.
The Supreme Court grants just one new case on its final (scheduled) orders list of 2025, about a defendant's ability to challenge allegedly racist peremptory strikes.
No more (scheduled) conferences till 2026. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
No more (scheduled) conferences till 2026. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
December 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM
The Supreme Court grants just one new case on its final (scheduled) orders list of 2025, about a defendant's ability to challenge allegedly racist peremptory strikes.
No more (scheduled) conferences till 2026. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
No more (scheduled) conferences till 2026. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...
Good piece about some very bad editorials, which I find more depressing than enraging. They have no apparent audience (besides Bezos) and lack basic fluency in the legal concepts they discuss. Both asinine and utterly pointless. Can someone who understands the law at least write them?
It is hard to overstate how shallow and embarrassing the Washington Post Editorial Board's analysis is whenver it tries to write about the law. They don't make arguments so much as they crank out half-assed jumbles of buzzwords that they hope will make Jeff Bezos happy. Don't care for it at all!
The Washington Post Editorial Board Is Spectacularly Awful at Legal Analysis
Since Bezos overhauled the board earlier this year, it has been very good at cranking out billionaire-friendly propaganda. It is quite bad at everything else.
ballsandstrikes.org
December 12, 2025 at 9:18 PM
Good piece about some very bad editorials, which I find more depressing than enraging. They have no apparent audience (besides Bezos) and lack basic fluency in the legal concepts they discuss. Both asinine and utterly pointless. Can someone who understands the law at least write them?
While ICE continues to torment Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Maryland, federal prosecutors in Tennessee are trying to rig his forthcoming trial by suppressing any discussion of his unlawful deportation or the suspicious favors witnesses will get in exchange for their testimony. slate.com/news-and-pol...
December 12, 2025 at 7:56 PM
While ICE continues to torment Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Maryland, federal prosecutors in Tennessee are trying to rig his forthcoming trial by suppressing any discussion of his unlawful deportation or the suspicious favors witnesses will get in exchange for their testimony. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
Maybe this new blog can respond, in one of its first posts, to the argument that the term “interim docket” is a deliberately misleading attempt to minimize the (very permanent) doctrinal and real-world consequences of #SCOTUS’s rulings on emergency applications?
www.stevevladeck.com/p/177-the-no...
www.stevevladeck.com/p/177-the-no...
December 11, 2025 at 3:59 PM
Maybe this new blog can respond, in one of its first posts, to the argument that the term “interim docket” is a deliberately misleading attempt to minimize the (very permanent) doctrinal and real-world consequences of #SCOTUS’s rulings on emergency applications?
www.stevevladeck.com/p/177-the-no...
www.stevevladeck.com/p/177-the-no...
Unfortunately, under our Kavanaugh Stops regime, it is entirely rational for anyone who appears Hispanic to carry proof of citizenship at all times. The worst part is that it might not be enough: ICE/CBP keep arresting people who have proof of citizenship, refusing to accept its validity.
U.S. Latinos are now more worried about being asked to prove their legal status during their daily activities (43% today vs. 31% in March), and roughly 1 in 5 have changed their daily routines because of it.
December 11, 2025 at 4:33 PM
Unfortunately, under our Kavanaugh Stops regime, it is entirely rational for anyone who appears Hispanic to carry proof of citizenship at all times. The worst part is that it might not be enough: ICE/CBP keep arresting people who have proof of citizenship, refusing to accept its validity.
This is really incredible. The government's battle to deport Abrego Garcia has apparently been based on a lie from the start. Not even the "gang affiliation" lie or the "human smuggling" lie, but the more basic assertion that he was ordered to be deported in the first place.
🚨Judge Xinis finds that, incredibly, Mr. Abrego Garcia was never ordered deported in 2019. She notes that every since this saga began all the way back in March, the government has NEVER been able to produce any evidence that the immigration judge actually issued a removal order.
December 11, 2025 at 4:16 PM
This is really incredible. The government's battle to deport Abrego Garcia has apparently been based on a lie from the start. Not even the "gang affiliation" lie or the "human smuggling" lie, but the more basic assertion that he was ordered to be deported in the first place.
Is it worth pointing out the foundational legal errors in this editorial or should I simply disregard the rage-bait? www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
Opinion | Pam Bondi’s welcome woke rollback
The Justice Department rescinds regulations encouraging racial preferences.
www.washingtonpost.com
December 11, 2025 at 3:38 PM
Is it worth pointing out the foundational legal errors in this editorial or should I simply disregard the rage-bait? www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/202...
Reposted by Mark Joseph Stern
BREAKING: Judge Xinis orders ICE’s release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia “immediately.”
December 11, 2025 at 3:34 PM
BREAKING: Judge Xinis orders ICE’s release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia “immediately.”