I know these “interviews” with Justice Barrett are carefully scripted. But if she’s going to keeping urging Americans to “read the opinions,” and not just commentary, it sure would be nice if someone would ask her what we should do when—as is so often the case these days—there’s no opinion to read…
Over public dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito, & Gorsuch, #SCOTUS leaves in place 4th Cir. injunction requiring a South Carolina public high school to allow a single transgender student to use the bathroom corresponding with their gender identity—stressing that it's "not a ruling on the merits." https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreicbw2ert35kaomoldtfkhitzufmhrpwh2esppmsoa3kdc3wksgkoi
Chief Justice Roberts has issued an “administrative” stay allowing President Trump to remove the last Democratic member of Federal Trade Commission while the full Court decides whether to freeze lower-court rulings that had held that her firing was unlawful: https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreibkeyph4cdgei44vgw6wvpetmmepigtx2fhiq2sobc5tnoxyx77qa
#BREAKING: Fifth Circuit (Southwick & Ramirez, JJ.) holds that President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act against Tren de Aragua is unlawful, and blocks AEA removals in the Northern District of Texas (over a lengthy dissent from Judge Oldham): [www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...](📄.pdf ) [ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2...](📄.pdf )
By a 7-4 vote, the full Federal Circuit has *affirmed* a lower-court ruling holding that many of President Trump’s tariffs exceed his statutory authority. The ruling won’t go into effect until October 14, though—which gives the Trump administration plenty of time to seek intervention from #SCOTUS: [storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco...](📄.pdf )
“Then they came for Cracker Barrel…”
TL;DR: 5 justices say Trump doesn't have to immediately restore the funding, but 5 *also* signal that the underlying directives are unlawful. That sends a fairly strong (if mixed) message that Trump will lose these cases *eventually,* but only once they're brought in the Court of Federal Claims. RE:
Bluesky Social
Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social)
Splitting 5-4 (with Chief Justice Roberts joining the three Democratic appointees in dissent), #SCOTUS grants *partial* stay to Trump administratio...
 View quoted note →
Splitting 5-4 (with Chief Justice Roberts joining the three Democratic appointees in dissent), #SCOTUS grants *partial* stay to Trump administration in NIH funding case; holds that challenges to grant terminations (but *not* the underlying guidance) need to be filed in the Court of Federal Claims: [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
The latest example of an important lower-court ruling adverse to Trump that the administration *isn’t* appealing is last Saturday’s D.C. Circuit decision about restoring public access to data on how the executive branch is (or isn’t) spending appropriated funds. That ruling goes into effect today: [Opinion (DC circuit)](
Opinion (DC circuit)
 )
My own view is that it was *really* smart of D.C. to wait for the Trump admin. to overplay its hand before suing. It's one thing to invoke the emergency police support provision of the Home Rule Act in specific cases; it's something else entirely to claim it allows the feds to *take over* the MPD.