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...
 )
I keep thinking he can’t stoop any lower—and then he does: [reason.com/volokh/2025/...](
Reason.com
The Supreme Court Unfairly Attacked A "Careful" District Court Judge Who Faithfully Discharged His Office Under Pressure
Justice Scalia once ridiculed the coastal elites on his Court who fail to represent the "vast expanse in-between." Somewhere in…
 ) https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreigjlec7xp54nubgujvqrsn23mw4zwsq44v24tfelxq5lly2hk4au4
Even *if* you accept Stephen Miller’s (textually, historically, and morally indefensible) claim that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to due process, you’d *still* need due process to ensure that the individuals at issue are, in fact, undocumented. His argument fails even on its own terms.
When it’s impossible to distinguish between your blog posts and the claims that Stephen Miller is making, it might be time to just stop writing: [reason.com/volokh/2025/...](
Reason.com
A Tale Of Two Shadow Dockets
The Supreme Court moves heaven and earth to block removal of alleged gang members who are almost certainly removable, but says nothing about Ohio i...
 ) https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreie4xlob3rodm52xn5igzdoo7d2euwxwptvvtbn4766nt744ocb7wq https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreif5hv6f7wkgojzr5e4qo6danup5ccebj73nfelliy3cdo3rin6c6q
Sir, this is a Wendy’s. https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreicdu7o2x5rirkmuu4thahrmuvxxiatn7y6b4nzmdjl65my5cc55fm
One point that's going to get lost in the discussion of [#SCOTUS's](
Bluesky Social
Bluesky
 ) intervention in the Alien Enemy Act case: This is the *value* of nationwide injunctions. Without them, you have to go district by district, and the government can try to play games by moving people to districts without relief (yet).
I don't really care what the "political consequences" are of fighting for the proposition that *everyone* is entitled to due process before they are removed from the United States and sent to a Salvadoran prison. It's not really a principle if you only adhere to it when it's politically expedient.
Either the U.S. government *is* able to exert monetary and diplomatic pressure on El Salvador sufficient to produce Abrego Garcia’s release, or it isn’t. The latter would be either a bald-faced lie or a pretty stunning concession of our national impotence. The Vice President should pick one. https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreibmpr2yjriwntqgisffzzepnmxej3blgrb43ygueimi564ascf63q
If the U.S. government is going to take the position that, once removed from the United States, folks can’t be brought back, then it sure seems to me that federal courts should be reflexively and categorically barring *all* removals until they’re 100 percent certain that the removals are lawful.
Before folks overreact to headlines about the judge’s ruling in the Khalil case, please note that (1) it was an immigration judge (IJ), not a federal district court; and (2) the IJ had no power to consider Khalil’s constitutional objections. This particular decision was a fait accompli.