You are allowed to check basic facts before publishing your post!!! reason.com/volokh/2026/...

Will be discussing this nightmare case on @11thhourmsnow.bsky.social in a few minutes!

I think this could go either way, and it's profoundly alarming that it may come down to a single vote. The legal arguments against late-arriving ballots make no sense; the policy arguments are rooted in concern about voter fraud that does not exist. I fear for the midterms. slate.com/news-and-pol...

NEW: The Supreme Court has announced Wednesday, March 25, as its next opinion day.

Conservative jurists like to say that many laws are "stupid but constitutional" or "awful but lawful" to explain that courts can't just strike down policies they deem unwise. Today the Republican-appointed justices repeatedly criticized mail voting POLICIES without identifying a real legal defect.

Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan were working over Paul Clement pretty ruthlessly and effectively, so he had to fall back on the cheap joke: the old saw about voting fraud in Chicago.

What the law actually means when it sets "election day" as the first Tues after the first Mon in Nov is that's the latest people can vote. Which a voter who puts their ballot in the mail has done. Nobody's voting after election day, you can't can mark and successfully cast a ballot the day after.

This was, to put it mildly, quite misleading by Kavanaugh—suggesting that a professor made the OPPOSITE point that he actually made through selective quotation.

Some very disturbing questions from the Republican-appointed justices in today's Supreme Court arguments—definitely several votes to strike down laws in 30 states which count mail ballots that arrive shortly after Election Day, as long as they're cast by Election Day. Not what I was hoping to hear.

The Supreme Court refuses to review an odious 5th Circuit decision granting qualified immunity to Texas officials who arrested a citizens-journalist in retaliation against her posing questions to public officials. Sotomayor has an appropriately furious dissent: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

The Supreme Court refuses to review the 5th Circuit's extremely dubious ruling against Rodney Reed's request for a DNA test, which could prove the death row inmate's innocence. (There is a very good chance he is innocent!) All three liberals dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

By an apparent 6–3 vote, the Supreme Court grants qualified immunity to an officer who performed a painful "rear wristlock" on a nonviolent protester during a sit-in, summarily reversing the 2nd Circuit. All three liberals dissent—here's the gist of it: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

The Supreme Court's ONLY decision today is Olivier v. Brandon. Kagan's unanimous opinion holds that Heck v. Humphrey does NOT bar §1983 suits seeking purely prospective relief against the government. (This is good.) www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

This is a fantastic post and the deconstruction of Barclay’s flawed arguments is masterful. It’s unfortunate that SCOTUSblog would publish an article so rife with errors. Very telling that defending this court’s shadow docket chicanery requires butchering the facts.

😐https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/03/markwayne-mullin-secret-mission-rand-paul-john-fetterman.html

Here we see what folks like @anthonymkreis.bsky.social, @gowder.io, and @evanbernick.bsky.social have been warning about: An aspect (perhaps a pathology) of the success or failure of legal thought is reflected in how well you're able to market your ideas, even if those ideas are flawed.

I know it's National Review, but even by those standards, this is a strange piece. The author faults the Utah district court for exercising its power to name a temporary U.S. Attorney, but his actual qualm is with the Senate for failing to confirm Trump's pick! www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/...

One thing lost in the SAVE Act debate is that the Supreme Court would quickly strike down this kind of draconian voter suppression if it gave a damn about the First Amendment, and it's depressing that we all know it just doesn't. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/ana...

This is basically what Steve urged the Supreme Court to do in his newsletter this very morning, so I'm choosing to believe the justices read his post and took his advice. www.stevevladeck.com/p/216-the-hu...

This is a really smart take on some very stupid ramblings

The Free State of Florida, where women who don’t want a C-Section will be dragged into a court proceeding *while in labor* to defend their choice.

Opening the opinion with quotes from Trump basically admitting that this investigation was pretext to pressure Powell into cutting rates? Power move.

Other judges auditioning for Alito's seat seem to tell Trump they'd be loyal to him on the Supreme Court. This one seems to say he will BE Trump on the bench—aping the vulgar version of Trump from the Access Hollywood tape to prove he is totally incapable of shame. slate.com/news-and-pol...

Today at noon I'll be on a panel with the great @nateraymond.bsky.social about how we cover federal courts today. It'll be followed by a panel on state courts and then a panel of judges! Should be a great event—anyone can sign up here and submit questions: tinyurl.com/covering-cou...

Today at noon I'll be on a panel with the great @nateraymond.bsky.social about how we cover federal courts today. It'll be followed by a panel on state courts and then a panel of judges! Should be a great event—anyone can sign up here and submit questions: tinyurl.com/covering-cou...

This is a fantastic development and long overdue. Wonderful news!

A shocking number of people responding to this video clearly did not watch the video. David is extremely opposed to the Trump administration's terrorization of immigrant communities. He is describing serious problems with the current laws which make accountability difficult.

BREAKING: Former military lawyers say use of JAG lawyers in Minnesota violates the Posse Comitatus Act. Although recent litigation has focused on troop deployments to American cities, a new challenge in Minnesota looks at DOJ's use of JAG lawyers in non-military cases. New, at Law Dork:

Another reason why Bondi is trying to block state bars from investigating DOJ attorneys accused of ethics violations (which is itself illegal): slate.com/news-and-pol...

Jordan Fox, the special attorney who admitted that her office violated a ton of court orders, was in fact serving illegally the whole time ... slate.com/news-and-pol...

Justice Ziegler just announced that she won't run for re-election next year. With no incumbent, Democrats may have an easier time scooping up this seat. www.wkow.com/news/top-sto...

Gorsuch dissents from the Supreme Court's refusal to consider whether a judge (not a jury) can extend a person's prison sentence by finding, by a preponderance of evidence (not beyond reasonable doubt), that he violated supervised release. (I agree with Gorsuch.) www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

The Supreme Court takes up one new case today, a challenge to the Air Force's disposal of toxic waste on a beach that's vital to Guam's endangered wildlife and local population. SCOTUS will review a lower court ruling against the Air Force. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

Or how about the secretary of state hanging out with a guy convicted of seditious conspiracy against the US?

A US submarine sinking a lonely, dinky Iranian surface ship an ocean away from the theater of the main conflict—and 9000 miles from North America—makes it pretty clear the US is fighting a general war, without the declaration required by the Constitution. www.reuters.com/world/asia-p...

I agree, quite apart from the merits of the case. Alito could only defend the Supreme Court's authority to intervene by grievously misrepresenting the facts. The reality is that there's no plausible argument SCOTUS had the power to do what it did. Why didn't that matter to six justices?

The second, final Supreme Court decision is Galette v. NJ Transit. Per Sotomayor's unanimous opinion, NJ Transit is NOT an arm of NJ and thus NOT entitled to sovereign immunity. This is a very good ruling that allows civil suits against NJ Transit! I'm surprised www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

The Supreme Court's first decision is Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. Per KBJ's unanimous opinion, the INA requires application of the substantial-evidence standard to the BIA's conclusion that a given set of undisputed facts does not constitute persecution. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

This thread on Alito's outrageously misrepresentation of the facts in the NY voting rights case is so damning. Alito's account was misleading to the point of falsity. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. He gets to toss around bogus claims without any consequence.

'UNIMAGINABLE CRUELTY': Judge Gary Brown, a Trump appointeee from NY, thrashes DHS' treatment of a man who came to the US at 9 as an abuse/neglect victim, has no criminal record and became a college grad. "The laws of decency condemn such villainy." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

2022: We worry that substantive due process lets judges impose their policy preferences under the guise of “fundamental rights” that don’t appear in the Constitution 2026: Surprise! The due process clause requires schools to out trans students to their parents. We found it hidden there all along!

Exactly right: “We’re long past the point at which there are neutral legal principles that can be deployed to persuasively reconcile all of the Court’s behavior … It makes the Court at least look like what so many regularly accuse it of being: a font of partisan political power, and not much more.”

As Kagan notes in her dissent, the Court opted not to hear the due process parental rights argument against bans on gender-affirming medical care in Skrmetti, basically setting up a regime where parents can force their trans children back into the closet but cannot help them out of it

A disturbing and hypocritical ruling on so many levels. Especially the due process holding. The court JUST said there’s no deeply rooted right for women to control their own bodies. But there is a deeply rooted right for parents to know if their kids question their gender at school? Come on.

BREAKING: SCOTUS blocks New York state court redistricting order, over the strong dissent of the Democratic appointees.

WHOA: WSJ reporting that DOJ is dropping its appeals of the four law firm executive order rulings as soon as today. www.wsj.com/us-news/law/...

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops files one (1) amicus brief telling the Supreme Court that the Citizenship Clause means what it says and Trad Cath Republicans start whining about theocracy lol

While advocates have spent YEARS screaming about the mostly-irrelevant 1994 Crime Bill, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (the law at issue here) quietly grinds away, shielding our brutal prison system from whole swathes of accountability, almost completely ignored.

Even if you share my civil libertarian skepticism of this particular law, Mike is correct. It's fundamentally unfair and anti-democratic for the Supreme Court to fault the Congress of 1968 for failing to foresee Second Amendment principles that SCOTUS would make up out of whole cloth decades later.

By a 6–3 vote, SCOTUS refuses to review a judge-made rule that bars indigent prisoners from splitting the filing fee among themselves when filing a federal suit—even though everyone else is allowed to split that fee. These defendants were allegedly tortured. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...