Steve Vladeck
banner
stevevladeck.bsky.social
Steve Vladeck
@stevevladeck.bsky.social

@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

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%
Pinned
I’m really excited about this — and about the chance to work with Allison Lorentzen and the entire @vikingbooks.bsky.social team!
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.

For today's bonus issue of "One First," I wrote about Monday's @nytimes.com scoop regarding Chief Justice Roberts having clerks and other employees sign non-disclosure agreements, and why #SCOTUS's transparency problems run far deeper and wider than just NDAs:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-207-...
Bonus 207: The Court's True Transparency Problem(s)
Monday's New York Times scoop on Chief Justice Roberts having employees sign non-disclosure agreements would hit differently if the justices were *remotely* committed to more transparency elsewhere.
www.stevevladeck.com

Reposted by Jacob T. Levy

As expected, #SCOTUS denies the emergency application to block California’s congressional redistricting—with no public dissents.

Among other things, this is also a good addition to the “be cynical but not nihilistic about the Court” file.

It's just a tricky balance to strike between trying to reach the most people / provide the broadest public access to these topics and having the capacity to accomplish both of those things.

The fact that you didn't click through to the second post in my thread (which provides a free pass-through link to the post) before criticizing me is part of the very problem we are currently facing.
Even if you don't have time to read all 83 pages of Judge Reyes's opinion barring the Trump administration from rescinding Temporary Protected Status for 350,000+ Haitians, please at least check out the four-page introduction.

It's a tour de force:

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

I'm planning to write about this for Thursday's newsletter. But as a quick preview, I think there are even bigger transparency issues with the current Court, and this is ... of a piece ... with the efforts to resist formal and informal access to more of the Court's work.

Thanks!

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

I found a PDF of the Hitler's Willing Law Professors book chapter that Vladeck mentions. If you'd like to read here it is

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

This is a wild story. You can read the details here: www.stevevladeck.com/p/207-the-ju...

Reposted by Stephen I. Vladeck

Everyone should read this analysis by @stevevladeck.bsky.social :

I posted the briefs here:

bsky.app/profile/stev...

See footnote 4 of the linked post.

“This ought to be the final nail in the coffin of congressional Republicans’ breathless efforts to gin up impeachment charges against a judge whose only actual sin, as it turns out, was to decline to roll over when the government defied one of his orders, and then lied about it.”

Me @ “One First”:
207. The Justice Department Beclowns Itself (Again)
The denouement of DOJ's misconduct complaint against Chief Judge Boasberg provides useful lessons relating to both the Department's continuing misbehavior and the emptiness of calls for impeachment.
www.stevevladeck.com

Also, "we leaked it so it's public" is really not the magic bullet they seem to think it is.

There are apparently three. Two have been publicly dismissed.

Yup.

One might also point out that Bondi’s tweet announcing the complaint violated the confidentiality provisions of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act:

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
28 U.S. Code § 360 - Disclosure of information
www.law.cornell.edu

My read is the latter.

It’s worse: it *does* exist, but DOJ wouldn’t provide it because then it would’ve had to say how it got it.

I’m planning to in my newsletter on Monday.

And for those asking why/how Roberts got involved, the order explains that the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit asked the Chief Justice to transfer the complaint to another circuit because it relates to ongoing litigation *in* the D.C. Circuit.

Totally by the book.

The order explains that the Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit asked the Chief Justice to transfer the complaint to another circuit because it relates to ongoing litigation *in* the D.C. Circuit. Totally by the book.
We finally know what happened to DOJ's (frivolous) misconduct complaint against Chief Judge Boasberg:

It was transferred by Chief Justice Roberts from the D.C. Circuit to Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeff Sutton, and Sutton dismissed it in a ... direct ... memorandum and order just two weeks later:
www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov

I love the energy, y'all. But we're under specific instructions to wear business attire. Maybe I'll find a hat...

I appreciate the energy. But the dress code for the advocates is actually quite specific that we should be in business attire, and I don't think they meant "16th-century Venetian business attire."