Steve Vladeck

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

This @washingtonpost.com editorial doesn’t make it past the second paragraph without a glaring (and telling) factual error. President Washington didn’t create the War Department in 1789; *Congress* did: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...

Two things can be true: 1) The President has legal authority over the D.C. police and the D.C. National Guard that he doesn't have *anywhere else* in the country; & 2) Even if this doesn't set a legal precedent, it sets an ominous *political* precedent for pretextually overriding local government.

#SCOTUS all-but overruled a unanimous, 90-year-old precedent through an unexplained "administrative" stay this morning, and that's only the second-most-problematic thing it did before lunchtime.

Usually, I’m the one who comes to @ksvesq.bsky.social’s rescue when her work travel goes sideways. Today, it was all Karen coming to mine.

Justices Kagan and Barrett are testifying before Congress today—about the Court’s budget. It’ll be the first time a justice has appeared before the legislature since 2019—even though the practice used to be (and *ought* to be) a lot more common: www.stevevladeck.com/p/228-justic...

After losing in courts across the country, the Trump administration has successfully steered nationwide litigation over gender-affirming medical care for minors to a single Texas judge in a single Texas district court. In "One First," me on how this happened (and why it's allowed but shouldn't be):

TBH, it's not a very good likeness of me (or Karen)... (H/T: GULC alumna Maria Lowe.)

Today's bonus "One First" looks at the three categories of Trump-related cases most likely to dominate #SCOTUS's docket in its October 2026 Term: (1) immigration detention; (2) appropriations/spending fights; & (3) congressional subpoenas (in a world in which Democrats retake at least one chamber):

#SCOTUS hasn’t granted rehearing in a case after it was decided on the merits docket since 1965, and it hasn’t done so to *fully* reconsider a ruling since 1956. In other words, “sure, Jan.” More in my “One First” explainer here: www.stevevladeck.com/p/90-petitio...

If you’re wondering whether/how Trump can seek “rehearing” of #SCOTUS’s denial of certiorari in the second E. Jean Carroll case, boy, do I have an old newsletter entry for you!: www.stevevladeck.com/p/90-petitio...

Today's "One First" looks back at an over-stuffed week of #SCOTUS news, and tries to highlight some of the important developments out of the Court that got less attention coming as they did in the midst of even more important developments out of the Court: www.stevevladeck.com/p/237-last-w...

This passage from @davidlat.bsky.social perfectly captures the false dichotomy you see so often from the Supreme Court's defenders: The Court is held out as "independent" because it doesn't *always* rule for Trump. That whitewashes (1) how often it *does*; & (2) its bad behavior in non-Trump cases.

Sunday morning newsletter writing: Covent Garden Wimbledon watching edition.