BREAKING: The PA Supreme Court holds that mandatory life without parole sentences for all "felony murder" convictions -- a sentence more than 1,000 people in PA are serving -- violates the state constitution's "cruel" punishment ban. This is GROUNDBREAKING: www.pacourts.us/assets/opini...

congrats to sam moyn on getting the coveted "even the liberal [blank]" endorsement from reactionaries eager to destroy equal citizenship

This is an absolute scandal; the United States government is deliberately consolidating all deportation cases of an ethnic minority that the President has called "garbage" in front of a handpicked group of judges and with dramatically accelerated timeline. A lawsuit was filed yesterday against it.

I’m glad the Supreme Court ruled that Trump has immunity because I wouldn’t want future presidents to be deterred from showing off this sort of fun memorabilia from their time in office.

A truly awful 2–1 decision by the 8th Circuit affirming the Trump administration's reinterpretation of federal law to require *mandatory detention* of migrants already present in the country—even if they've lived here for decades without committing a crime. www.documentcloud.org/documents/27...

We've made it as easy as possible to kill multiple people with your car and get away with it, especially if the car in question is a Mercedes www.sfchronicle.com/california/a...

Every SCOTUS case is a big case to someone.

This case is a good reminder that even "smaller" Supreme Court decisions can have multi-billion-dollar consequences. The 2018 decision striking down the federal ban on sports betting was received as, at most, a medium-sized ruling that barely broke into the news cycle. And, well, here we are now.

SCOTUS's second, final decision is Cox v. Sony, and it'll be a relief to internet providers—they are NOT liable for copyright infringement just because they know their services may be used for it. They're only liable if they induced or "tailored" services to it. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

First Supreme Court opinion is Rico v. U.S. Per Gorsuch's 8–1 opinion, the Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant absconds. (I think this is right.) Alito dissents. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

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...