Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Opinion | No, Trump Can’t Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants

7 87 310

Reposted by Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 19h

The federal government does and should have the authority to deploy troops into our cities—even without local consent—*when the circumstances actually warrant it.*

In @nytopinion.nytimes.com, me on why the real issue in Portland, Chicago, and elsewhere is the missing / contrived factual predicate:

Opinion | No, Trump Can’t Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants

30 130 510

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 18h

Some of us were not "very comfortable with this," and have been warning about these powers for years.

The reason why Congress delegated this power was the fact that Congress was *out of session* for more than two-thirds of every year, and wasn't in a position to respond immediately to emergencies.

1 1 6

Reposted by Steve Vladeck

KSV @ksvesq.bsky.social · 18h

It’s just a joke, it’s just a joke, it’s just a joke…

Jon Cooper @joncooper-us.bsky.social · 18h

Cartoon by @ivan-ehlers.bsky.social.

9 49 270

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 18h

I know it's tiresome to play the "imagine if the parties were reversed" game, but thinking about how Republicans (and right-wing media) would be reacting if a Democratic-controlled House was refusing to swear in a newly elected *Republican* member may be the apotheosis of this particular meme.

28 150 730

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 18h

1) I didn't write the headline.

2) The article itself rather specifically discusses this.

1 2

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 19h

The federal government does and should have the authority to deploy troops into our cities—even without local consent—*when the circumstances actually warrant it.*

In @nytopinion.nytimes.com, me on why the real issue in Portland, Chicago, and elsewhere is the missing / contrived factual predicate:

Google Asks Supreme Court to Intervene in Dispute With Fortnite Creator

30 130 510

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 1d

The first #SCOTUS ruling on an emergency application during the October 2025 Term is a denial, over no public dissents, of Google's application to pause the effect of the Ninth Circuit's latest ruling in its long-running dispute with Epic Games over the Android app store.

More details here:

181. Closing the Book on OT2024

3 26 98

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 1d

With the new #SCOTUS term officially beginning today, this week’s “regular” issue of One First looks at the final data on emergency applications from the October 2024 Term—one in which the justices set all kinds of records, almost all of which are positively unhealthy for the Court and the country:

As the October 2025 Term officially begins, it's worth taking a moment to highlight the record-setting—and revealing—final statistics for how the justices handled emergency applications during OT2024.

2 52 190

Reposted by Steve Vladeck

Shelley English @shelleyenglish.bsky.social · 2d

Don't obey in advance.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-180-... @stevevladeck.bsky.social

3 40 160

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

It has to be from the Court region of France. Otherwise, it’s called something else.

4 1 74

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

Thanks. Me too.

7

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

It *was* repealed, as the links in my initial thread and this post explain.

They also explain why that doesn’t help him.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/181-courts...

In response to adverse judicial rulings, the President's advisers and supporters are claiming courts lack the power to halt domestic use of the military. A critical early precedent is to the contrary.

3

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

So the argument is that Congress giving *judges* this power ≠ Congress giving *courts* this power?

Umm…

100 250 1.6K

Reposted by Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

In light of Judge Immergut's ruling, there's a lot of noise today coming from the President's advisers and supporters about courts not having the power to provide prospective relief against domestic uses of the military.

Via "One First," me on the rather significant early precedent to the contrary:

In response to adverse judicial rulings, the President's advisers and supporters are claiming courts lack the power to halt domestic use of the military. A critical early precedent is to the contrary.

39 530 1.4K

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

Indeed; I was referring to a specific tweet.

3

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

Not least because of the current state of the law regarding such damages suits.

5

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

Of course!

1 7

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

No, this is a specific reference to tweets.

2 18

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

Tweet less; research more.

24 79 840

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

Here’s the longer version of this thread:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/181-courts...

In response to adverse judicial rulings, the President's advisers and supporters are claiming courts lack the power to halt domestic use of the military. A critical early precedent is to the contrary.

8 89 570

Steve Vladeck @stevevladeck.bsky.social · 2d

In light of Judge Immergut's ruling, there's a lot of noise today coming from the President's advisers and supporters about courts not having the power to provide prospective relief against domestic uses of the military.

Via "One First," me on the rather significant early precedent to the contrary:

In response to adverse judicial rulings, the President's advisers and supporters are claiming courts lack the power to halt domestic use of the military. A critical early precedent is to the contrary.