Scholar

Stephen I. Vladeck

Videos

Stephen Isaiah Vladeck is an American legal scholar. He is a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he… more

Stephen I. Vladeck
H-index: 7
Political science 64%
Law 14%
more

Reposted by: Stephen I. Vladeck, James Grimmelmann

joshchafetz.bsky.social
Very nice piece from my colleague @stevevladeck.bsky.social in today's Times on the illegality of Trump's troop deployments to American cities. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/o...
Opinion | No, Trump Can’t Deploy Troops to Wherever He Wants
www.nytimes.com
7 87 310

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
1) I didn't write the headline.

2) The article itself rather specifically discusses this.
1 2

Reposted by: Stephen I. Vladeck, Dorothy Bishop, Linda J. Skitka , and 1 more

joncooper-us.bsky.social
Cartoon by @ivan-ehlers.bsky.social.
300 3.7K 11K

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Stephen I. Vladeck, Anna O. Law, David R. Miller

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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
www.nytimes.com
30 130 510

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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:
Google Asks Supreme Court to Intervene in Dispute With Fortnite Creator
www.nytimes.com
3 26 98

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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:
181. Closing the Book on OT2024
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.
www.stevevladeck.com
2 52 190

Reposted by: Stephen I. Vladeck

shelleyenglish.bsky.social
Don't obey in advance.

www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-180-... @stevevladeck.bsky.social
3 40 160

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
It has to be from the Court region of France. Otherwise, it’s called something else.
4 1 74

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Thanks. Me too.
7

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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...
181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military
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.
www.stevevladeck.com
3

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Robert C. Richards

stevevladeck.bsky.social
So the argument is that Congress giving *judges* this power ≠ Congress giving *courts* this power?

Umm…
100 250 1.6K

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Indeed; I was referring to a specific tweet.
3

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Not least because of the current state of the law regarding such damages suits.
5

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Of course!
1 7

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
No, this is a specific reference to tweets.
2 18

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Anna O. Law, John Morijn, Michael Plaxton

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Tweet less; research more.
24 79 840

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Here’s the longer version of this thread:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/181-courts...
181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military
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.
www.stevevladeck.com
8 89 570

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Stephen I. Vladeck, Kim L. Scheppele, Robert C. Richards

stevevladeck.bsky.social
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:
181. Courts and Domestic Use of the Military
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.
www.stevevladeck.com
39 530 1.4K

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Robert C. Richards

stevevladeck.bsky.social
The specific provision is section 2 of the Calling Forth Act of 1792:

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

For more background on the judicial review provision, and on how President Washington expressly relied upon it in putting down the Whiskey Rebellion, see:

www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/427_pa9s...
18 200 1.2K

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Michael E. Mann, Anna O. Law, Nandita Sharma , and 14 more

stevevladeck.bsky.social
The very first statute authorizing domestic use of the military during domestic emergencies, enacted in 1792 by a Congress full of the same folks who wrote and ratified the Constitution, expressly provided for judicial review in certain circumstances *before* the President could even send troops.
270 3.3K 11K

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Yes: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
www.supremecourt.gov
10

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Stephen I. Vladeck, Kim L. Scheppele, Mark A. Lemley

stevevladeck.bsky.social
From Friday's #SCOTUS ruling in the Venezuela TPS case: "Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here."

One problem: the May ruling didn't *analyze* those arguments/harms:
A screenshot of page 1 of the Supreme Court's October 3 grant of a stay in the Venezuela TPS case, the only analysis of which provides that "Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here." A screenshot of the Supreme Court's May 19 order in the Venezuela TPS case, which includes no analysis whatsoever. The boilerplate language reads as follows: The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted. The March 31, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, case No. 3:25-cv-1766, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. This order is without prejudice to any challenge to Secretary Noem's February 3, 2025 vacatur notice insofar as it purports to invalidate EADs, Forms I-797, Notices of Action, and Forms I-94 issued with October 2, 2026 expiration dates. See 8 U. S. C. §1254a(d)(3). Justice Jackson would deny the application.
33 270 920

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Robert C. Richards, Michael Jones‐Correa

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Important context from @genevievelakier.bsky.social:
genevievelakier.bsky.social
Genevieve Lakier @genevievelakier.bsky.social · 4d
The Trump Administration’s “Compact of Excellence” for Universities is... far from excellent! Indeed, it’s unconstitutional. In this post, let me count the ways.

blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-uncons...
The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine and the Compact for Excellence
Members of the Trump administration love to say that federal funding is a privilege not a right and therefore something that can be granted or withheld based on changing administrative priorities.
blog.dividedargument.com
77 240

Reposted by: Stephen I. Vladeck, Nancy Kanwisher, Brendan Nyhan , and 2 more

genevievelakier.bsky.social
The Trump Administration’s “Compact of Excellence” for Universities is... far from excellent! Indeed, it’s unconstitutional. In this post, let me count the ways.

blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-uncons...
The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine and the Compact for Excellence
Members of the Trump administration love to say that federal funding is a privilege not a right and therefore something that can be granted or withheld based on changing administrative priorities.
blog.dividedargument.com
5 230 560

by Stephen I. Vladeck — Reposted by: Robert C. Richards, Mark Rice

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Another Friday afternoon, another #SCOTUS grant of emergency relief to the Trump administration—this time to allow it to continue eliminating Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelan migrants.

The three Democratic appointees all dissent:

www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
www.supremecourt.gov
20 110 310

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
Here’s a really helpful @cnn.com video explaining what’s actually happening with emergency applications at #SCOTUS, and why they’ve become so controversial (with a cameo from me):

www.cnn.com/2025/10/02/p...
How the Supreme Court is fast-tracking Trump’s cases on its ‘shadow docket’ | CNN Politics
As President Trump continues to test precedents, the Supreme Court is seeing a high number of “shadow docket” cases. Here’s why that’s so controversial.
www.cnn.com
12 120 270

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Damages under the Civil Rights Act or the ADA are completely separate from the APA. And neither of those statutes authorize suits against federal law enforcement officers for engaging in excessive force (the prompt of my original post).
1 3

by Stephen I. Vladeck

stevevladeck.bsky.social
No damages are available under the APA, so yes, that statement is true.
1 3

References

Fields & subjects

Updated 1m