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.
Someone forgot to take down this webpage: [www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/v...](
 
 ) https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreiflwmnajqtqww3ququffkanfy5zgywffbfmj2i5qoafy6xahkqsxm
My quick take on Monday afternoon's unexplained #SCOTUS ruling in the Department of Education downsizing caseβ€”and how the justices' inconsistent treatment of the (similarly postured) student loan cases during the Biden administration illustrates in technicolor why the Court needs to explain itself: [167. The Inconsistent Court St...](
167. The Inconsistent Court Strikes Again
Comparing Monday's unexplained grant of emergency relief in the Department of Education downsizing case to how the justices handled President Biden...
 )
Since April 4, #SCOTUS has issued 15 rulings on 17 emergency applications filed by Trump (three birthright citizenship apps were consolidated). It has granted relief to Trump ... in all 15 rulings. It has written majority opinions in only 3. Today's order is the 7th with no explanation *at all.* RE:
Bluesky Social
Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social)
Here we go again: Over an acerbic dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor (joined in full by Justices Kagan and Jackson), #SCOTUS, with no explanat...
 View quoted note β†’
Here we go again: Over an acerbic dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor (joined in full by Justices Kagan and Jackson), #SCOTUS, with no explanation, grants a stay in the Department of Education RIFs caseβ€”effectively clearing the way for the Trump administration to dismantle much of the agency: [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](πŸ“„.pdf )
Over dissents from Justices Sotomayor & Jackson (and a rare concurrence from Justice Kagan), #SCOTUS "clarifies" that its 6/23 ruling staying a district court's injunction against third-country removals *also* applies to the district court's later order requiring a remedy for those already removed: [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](πŸ“„.pdf )
Fifth ruling from #SCOTUS is in the Texas porn age-verification case. For a 6-3 majority (with the three Democratic appointees dissenting), Justice Thomas *upholds* Texas's age-verification scheme for porn websites against a First Amendment challenge: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](πŸ“„.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](πŸ“„.pdf )
Fourth #SCOTUS ruling is in Mahmoud. For a 6-3 majority (with the three Dem. appointees dissenting), Justice Alito sides with parents in challenge to school board's introduction of the β€œLGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](πŸ“„.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](πŸ“„.pdf )
Third #SCOTUS ruling is in the universal service fund (non-delegation) case. For a 6-3 majority (with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting), Justice Kagan *rejects* non-delegation challenge; upholds universal service fund structure and authority: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](πŸ“„.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](πŸ“„.pdf )
Fourth (and *last*) ruling from #SCOTUS today is in Riley v. Bondi. For a messy, fractured 5-4 majority (with Justice Gorsuch joining the three Democratic appointees in dissent) narrows judicial review in a small category of complicated immigration appeals: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](πŸ“„.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](πŸ“„.pdf )