The Supreme Court’s unexplained order on Monday in the third-country removals case, and the continuing controversy over what it does and doesn’t mean, is Exhibit A for why the justices need to provide an explanation at least when they *grant* emergency relief. More in today’s bonus “One First”: [Bonus 161: Why the Court Needs...](
Bonus 161: Why the Court Needs to Explain Itself
The continuing fallout from Monday afternoon’s ruling in the third-country removals case is an object lesson for why the justices should be provi...
 )
Today’s unsigned, unexplained #SCOTUS ruling clearing the way for removals of migrants to third countries without any additional process is a disaster—not just on the merits, but because of the government misbehavior that it not only refuses to punish, but effectively rewards. Me, via “One First”: [161. The Court's Disastrous Ru...](
161. The Court's Disastrous Ruling in the Third-Country Removal Case
The majority did not just greenlight an especially odious immigration policy without any explanation; it did so in a case in which the government d...
 )
Here’s the “Presidential Memorandum”: [www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...](
The White House
Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 ) There’s no Insurrection Act invocation; Trump is federalizing 2000 CA Nat’l Guard personnel only to “protect federal functions.” *Without* invoking the Insurrection Act, anything more would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreicwoikrcr3uazh34pth6x73as65qohim3hgdw5xzomofanhcyy2u4
There are two pathways to what Trump is doing: 1) He is federalizing 2000 National Guard troops; or 2) He is deploying 2000 members of another state’s National Guard with the permission of *that* state’s governor. These posts walk through the relevant authorities—and the questions they raise: RE:
Bluesky Social
Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social)
Re-upping this “One First” post from April asking—and trying to answer—five questions about the domestic use of the military: https://www.s...
 View quoted note →
Re-upping this “One First” post from April asking—and trying to answer—five questions about the domestic use of the military: [142. Five Questions About Dome...](
142. Five Questions About Domestic Use of the Military
The federal government's authorities to use the military for domestic law enforcement are old, broad, and vague. They may soon become far more rele...
 )
It’ll be interesting how the Trump administration’s remarkable ability to magically bring Abrego García back to the United States will bear on its arguments in other cases about how it really has no ability to influence the detention of others at CECOT.
#BREAKING: #SCOTUS grants Trump administration stay in DOGE/Social Security case (restoring DOGE’s access to SSA data) over public dissents from three Democratic appointees.
#BREAKING: #SCOTUS grants Trump administration application for stay in CHNV humanitarian parole immigration case; lets government deport those previously granted parole. Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Sotomayor, filed an eight-page dissenting opinion. Link to come shortly.
#BREAKING: In Oklahoma religious charter school case, #SCOTUS splits 4-4 (with Justice Barrett recused), which means the lower-court ruling (barring the religious charter school) stands without a (precedential) opinion: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](📄.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
Today’s bonus issue of “One First” takes a closer look at Judge Ho’s galling concurring opinion on remand in the A.A.R.P. Alien Enemies Act case—which accused #SCOTUS of showing “disrespect” to the district judge and President Trump by … protecting due process: [www.stevevladeck.com/p/bonus-152-...](
Bonus 152: Judge Ho, Due Process, and "Disrespect"
Some thoughts on Judge Ho's rather galling claim that the Supreme Court "disrespect[ed]" the district court and the President in Friday's ruling in...
 ) [Bonus 152: Judge Ho, Due Proce...](
Bonus 152: Judge Ho, Due Process, and "Disrespect"
Some thoughts on Judge Ho's rather galling claim that the Supreme Court "disrespect[ed]" the district court and the President in Friday's ruling in...
 )