Steve Vladeck

Marriage = when you and your partner are in different rooms of the house ostensibly doing different things and you text each other at the same time with the same thought about the answer to a logistics question for something happening a year from now.

This @stevevladeck.bsky.social piece is (as always) excellent. I would only add that the general "emergency" atmosphere, used to justify the Court's unexplained action, is entirely manufactured by the President. We're not in a war, an economic crisis, or anything resembling a true emergency.

Bonus 167: The Case for Not Writing With the justices handing down so many significant grants of emergency relief without rationales, it's worth identifying the arguments in support of unexplained rulings—and why they fail to persuade.

Although I wrote it before Justice Kavanaugh’s remarks this week at the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference attempting to defend #SCOTUS not explaining its rulings, I suspect that folks will find this “One First” post rather … responsive:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-167-...

The book has certainly … stayed relevant.

Bonus 167: The Case for Not Writing With the justices handing down so many significant grants of emergency relief without rationales, it's worth identifying the arguments in support of unexplained rulings—and why they fail to persuade.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-167-...

Not stupid at all. Yes, but it wouldn’t affect his judicial appointment. That can only be revoked through impeachment and removal.

Clark can (and surely will) appeal the D.C. Bar’s determination to the D.C. Court of Appeals (not to be confused with the D.C. Circuit).

But Ryan is 100% correct—this is a big deal.

169. Emergency Orders as Precedents Wednesday's ruling in Boyle isn't the first time the Court has given precedential effect to an unsigned order, but it's the first time it tried to explain *why,* for reasons that ... fail to persuade.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/169-the-pr...

Bonus 170: Whose Judicial Overreach? Debunking the unpersuasive (and also rather unprovable) claim that the Supreme Court's behavior on Trump-related emergency applications is largely a response to lower courts abusing their own powers.

#SCOTUS's academic defenders are increasingly arguing that the justices' behavior in Trump-related emergency applications is a response to district court "overreach."

But those claims depend upon cherry-picking from or misrepresenting the examples—and ignoring the Court's own shirking of its rules:

Typical move here by SCOTUS defenders to try to deflect from its direct culpability and to make it someone else’s fault…

The classic “but YOU made me do it”

Bonus 170: Whose Judicial Overreach? Debunking the unpersuasive (and also rather unprovable) claim that the Supreme Court's behavior on Trump-related emergency applications is largely a response to lower courts abusing their own powers.

#SCOTUS's academic defenders are increasingly arguing that the justices' behavior in Trump-related emergency applications is a response to district court "overreach."

But those claims depend upon cherry-picking from or misrepresenting the examples—and ignoring the Court's own shirking of its rules:

The attached article is thorough and entirely convincing.

Steve illustrates the value of patiently eviscerating nonsense in lieu of ignoring it.

170. DOJ's (Ridiculous) Misconduct Complaint Against Chief Judge Boasberg DOJ's complaint that Chief Judge Boasberg engaged in "misconduct" would be laughably stupid if it didn't reflect such a transparently obvious and dangerous attempt to delegitimize the federal courts.

Me on the factually misleading and analytically ridiculous misconduct complaint DOJ has filed against Chief Judge Boasberg—and the dangerousness of DOJ so openly trying to undermine public confidence in the only institution that has been even partially effective at checking the Trump administration:

170. DOJ's (Ridiculous) Misconduct Complaint Against Chief Judge Boasberg DOJ's complaint that Chief Judge Boasberg engaged in "misconduct" would be laughably stupid if it didn't reflect such a transparently obvious and dangerous attempt to delegitimize the federal courts.

@stevevladeck.bsky.social on the insupportable "complaint" filed by DOJ against Judge Boasberg

170. DOJ's (Ridiculous) Misconduct Complaint Against Chief Judge Boasberg DOJ's complaint that Chief Judge Boasberg engaged in "misconduct" would be laughably stupid if it didn't reflect such a transparently obvious and dangerous attempt to delegitimize the federal courts.

Me on the factually misleading and analytically ridiculous misconduct complaint DOJ has filed against Chief Judge Boasberg—and the dangerousness of DOJ so openly trying to undermine public confidence in the only institution that has been even partially effective at checking the Trump administration:

169. Emergency Orders as Precedents Wednesday's ruling in Boyle isn't the first time the Court has given precedential effect to an unsigned order, but it's the first time it tried to explain *why,* for reasons that ... fail to persuade.

As @stevevladeck.bsky.social explains, if the Supreme Court wants lower courts to treat its orders as precedential it needs to explain them, preferably after old-fashioned things like briefing and hearings

www.stevevladeck.com/p/169-the-pr...

169. Emergency Orders as Precedents Wednesday's ruling in Boyle isn't the first time the Court has given precedential effect to an unsigned order, but it's the first time it tried to explain *why,* for reasons that ... fail to persuade.

The Supreme Court is now insisting that even its unexplained (and thinly explained) grants of emergency relief to the Trump administration are precedents lower courts have to follow.

As today’s “One First” explains, there are two different (but equally problematic) flaws with such an understanding:

Yes, this was an uncareful statement in my post. No rule prohibits corporations or unincorporated associations from bringing class actions. My (admittedly inaccurate) language was trying to capture that #SCOTUS has made it much, much harder (IMHO) for those groups to satisfy the Rule 23(a) factors.

Thanks Leah!!

Opinion | The Supreme Court Owes the Country Explanations for Its Big Decisions

Congratulations to Steve Vladeck and the indispensable one first for the shout out in today’s NY Times! @stevevladeck.bsky.social @nytopinion.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com/2025/07/28/o...

169. Emergency Orders as Precedents Wednesday's ruling in Boyle isn't the first time the Court has given precedential effect to an unsigned order, but it's the first time it tried to explain *why,* for reasons that ... fail to persuade.

The Supreme Court is now insisting that even its unexplained (and thinly explained) grants of emergency relief to the Trump administration are precedents lower courts have to follow.

As today’s “One First” explains, there are two different (but equally problematic) flaws with such an understanding:

Well, there’s a whole book you could read…

No. But it means she'd have to spend at least 90 of the 365 days preceding the relevant vacancy as the first assistant if *that* is the basis for appointing her as acting U.S. attorney (there are two other ways to do it).

I’m not sure I’m right. But the contrast between 3345 (which speaks to submission of a nomination) and 546 (which speaks to its defeat) sure seems significant.

Today's #SCOTUS grant of emergency relief (staying the mandate in the North Dakota Voting Rights Act case) is the 25th different application the justices have granted this term.

That is, according to my data, a single-term *record* for grants of emergency relief—and we still have 2.5 months to go!

Bonus 168: Appointing (and Removing) U.S. Attorneys A quick primer on the overlapping authorities for appointing and removing U.S. Attorneys—and the chaos unfolding in New York and New Jersey as the Trump administration tries to bypass the Senate.

For more on the background:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-168-...

It says more than that. The President can’t appoint the “first assistant” to be the acting officer if her nomination was *submitted,* not just if it’s *pending.* Withdrawing the nomination doesn’t change the fact that it was submitted:

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...

This will be challenged.