I, for one, am glad to be working alongside @stevevladeck.bsky.social, doing our own, often complementary, work to cover and explain what's going on in this moment.

Happy new year to One First and Law Dork, included in The Hill's Jan 1 article about legal coverage in the Trump era: "Geidner said working independently has allowed him to cover stories that major publications may not see as important or find amid other legal news." thehill.com/media/566118...

I love this piece by @mollycrabapple.bsky.social—and not just for the obvious reasons: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

I love this piece by @mollycrabapple.bsky.social—and not just for the obvious reasons: www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

“What does this song mean? For my whole life I don't know what this song means. I mean, 'Should old acquaintance be forgot.’ Does that mean we should forget old acquaintances or does it mean if we happen to forget them we should remember them, which is not possible because we already forgot them!?”

This is a strange way of saying “we’re complying with court orders now that we failed to get #SCOTUS to stay them.”

Spending the last day of 2025 with @stevevladeck.bsky.social recording a bonus podcast episode of One First, which will drop tomorrow. Happy new year, everyone. May your 2026 be filled with good health and peace.

As @richardre.bsky.social points out at "Divided Argument," #SCOTUS's ruling in Trump v. Illinois is ... hard to find on the Court's webpage: blog.dividedargument.com/p/finding-tr... Indeed, this is more than just a small inconvenience; as I've argued, it reflects deeper shadow docket pathologies:

“The Court got a very big one right—in ways that will almost certainly make it more difficult, as it should be, for the Trump administration to attempt to militarize domestic law enforcement based on dubious factual predicates.” Me in today’s “One First” on four takeaways from Trump v. Illinois:

Really fantastic new piece by my colleague Dave Rapallo. The most comprehensive treatment I've seen of minority investigative powers in Congress. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

“The Court got a very big one right—in ways that will almost certainly make it more difficult, as it should be, for the Trump administration to attempt to militarize domestic law enforcement based on dubious factual predicates.” Me in today’s “One First” on four takeaways from Trump v. Illinois:

Over public dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, #SCOTUS refuses to allow President Trump to deploy federalized National Guard troops into and around Chicago. This is a major loss for President Trump, even if, per Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, it’s temporary and on narrow legal Q:

“We couldn’t report on the sinking of the Titanic until we spoke to Captain Smith.”

"Pulling the Supreme Court back from the cliff is something progressives should view as far preferable to the alternative—where it may not just be the Court that gets pushed over the edge and into oblivion, but our entire constitutional (and democratic) order." Me in today's issue of "One First":

"Pulling the Supreme Court back from the cliff is something progressives should view as far preferable to the alternative—where it may not just be the Court that gets pushed over the edge and into oblivion, but our entire constitutional (and democratic) order." Me in today's issue of "One First":

Over no public dissents, #SCOTUS *denies* Trump administration's application for a stay in the immigration judges case (about whether the dispute should be in a district court or before the Merit Systems Protection Board). It's the Trump administration's first real loss at #SCOTUS since April.

NB: When I, a professor of law, profess that an act is unlawful, I am not doing it to inform the lawbreaker, but rather to inform you, the reader. So the question “what, like you think he cares?” is inapposite. The question is whether *you* care. I think you should, which is why I bother.

"And may the odds be ever in your favor..."

Great post by @stevevladeck.bsky.social on the anniversary of Korematsu, explaining why the legal justifications and rationalizations for unlawful action is often more damaging to the rule of law than the action itself. Necessity, Legality, and the Rule of Law open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

This post from @stevevladeck.bsky.social about the shadow docket is excellent. It's from a few months ago, but I continue to think about it. Highlighted a money quote below. www.stevevladeck.com/p/183-the-mi...

Really great piece. It's pretty revealing that the strongest defense of the term "interim docket" to describe the shadow docket is basically: Yeah, we know it's not descriptively accurate in a lot of cases, but we're annoyed by people who say "shadow docket." That's not even an argument!

I spend some of my time moonlighting as an actual appellate lawyer, and just had the privilege of filing the opening brief on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants in our appeal of the district court's dismissal of a lawsuit arising out of a 2018 Puerto Rico Air National Guard plane crash in Georgia:

Today's "One First" explains why the "Annie Hall problem" (the idea that critics will never be satisfied by anything the subject of their criticism does) is an especially inapt charge against those who are independently critical of both *what* #SCOTUS is doing in its rulings and *how* it's doing it:

Steve has a characteristically cogent and measured response to the “‘Annie Hall’ critique.” Mine is shorter: why would anyone choose in this moment to stand up for *this* Supreme Court? It is no vice to be perennially dissatisfied by its lawless actions.

Today's "One First" explains why the "Annie Hall problem" (the idea that critics will never be satisfied by anything the subject of their criticism does) is an especially inapt charge against those who are independently critical of both *what* #SCOTUS is doing in its rulings and *how* it's doing it:

"The jury verdict from 10 years ago contains a scrivener's error insofar as it states that the defendant was not guilty. We are changing that, nunc pro tunc, to guilty." Yeah, no.

The President of the United States has the exact same power to pardon a state-court conviction that you or I have—which is to say, none.

Nothing like a 7 a.m. TRO on a Friday morning...

Even for me, this is pretty in the weeds, but the shift in tone in SCOTUSblog's coverage since Sarah Isgur and The Dispatch took over—more deferential to the Court, more reverential of the justices as celebrities, more credulous and stenographic across the board—has been...notable

Maybe this new blog can respond, in one of its first posts, to the argument that the term “interim docket” is a deliberately misleading attempt to minimize the (very permanent) doctrinal and real-world consequences of #SCOTUS’s rulings on emergency applications? www.stevevladeck.com/p/177-the-no...

For this week's bonus issue of "One First," I wrote about Monday's #SCOTUS argument in Slaughter, Justice Barrett's concern about having to identify the specific constitutional provision from which the unitary executive theory derives, and the alarming possibility that con law is ... complicated:

I don’t write the headlines but I do like this one (post-Slaughter argument roundtable for @nytimes.com with @stevevladeck.bsky.social & @williambaude.bsky.social) www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...

Sometimes, it's difficult to predict how #SCOTUS is going to rule based solely on how the oral argument goes. And sometimes ... it's not.

Today’s “One First” tackles the grant of certiorari in one of the birthright citizenship cases, and then Justice Kagan’s TX redistricting dissent—“yet another warning about the majority’s seeming willingness to do … whatever it wants, at least where rulings on emergency applications are concerned.”

Today’s “One First” tackles the grant of certiorari in one of the birthright citizenship cases, and then Justice Kagan’s TX redistricting dissent—“yet another warning about the majority’s seeming willingness to do … whatever it wants, at least where rulings on emergency applications are concerned.”

The first third of the manuscript for”The Court We Need” is due tomorrow! Getting in some early-morning writing during our 7YO’s 6:00 am(!) figure skating practice…

In the district court vs. MSPB/immigration judges case, Chief Justice Roberts (as Circuit Justice for the Fourth Circuit) has already issued an administrative stay, and has ordered the respondents to reply to DOJ's emergency application by 4 p.m. next Wednesday: www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

I understand, as well as anyone, why folks are cynical about #SCOTUS. But even from the conservative justices' perspective, the birthright citizenship case is easy. And the Justice Department knows it, too; as I wrote in September, its bevavior in these cases has just been going through the motions:

#SCOTUS adds 4 cases to its docket, including one (but not both) of the birthright citizenship cases. As for why only one, this is the case that cleanly presents the merits (where Court’s likely to rule against Trump); the other case would’ve required the justices to decide if states had standing.

The Trump administration has filed its 32nd emergency application with #SCOTUS, this one seeking to freeze a Fourth Circuit ruling in a dispute over whether district courts can hear challenges to limits on what immigration judges are allowed to say publicly: georgetown.box.com/s/0ovhpw5pes...

#BREAKING: Over dissents from the three democratic appointees, #SCOTUS puts Texas's new House maps back into effect for (and, presumably, through) the 2026 midterms. The three Democratic appointees, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, dissent. I'll post the ruling shortly.

For this week’s bonus “One First,” I wrote about the legal questions surrounding any attempt to court-martial Senator Mark Kelly—and why (1) it’s not likely to go anywhere; (2) the threat is still ominous; and (3) the real story continues to be what the military is *doing,* not who’s criticizing it:

A huge thank you to @stevevladeck.bsky.social for this incredible blurb. Steve is one of the sharpest observers of our legal system—and one of the most generous humans in it. If you haven't read his book, The Shadow Docket, what are you waiting for? Read it, then The Pain Brokers (out Jan. 13)!

For this week’s bonus “One First,” I wrote about the legal questions surrounding any attempt to court-martial Senator Mark Kelly—and why (1) it’s not likely to go anywhere; (2) the threat is still ominous; and (3) the real story continues to be what the military is *doing,* not who’s criticizing it:

Looks like we've identified the conflict that led Senator Cruz to cancel this afternoon's Subcommittee hearing on "Impeachment: Holding Rogue Judges Accountable." www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-ac...

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment of "rogue" judges has been POSTPONED. It was supposed to be this afternoon. www.judiciary.senate.gov/committee-ac...

Update: The hearing just got postponed (new date/time TBD).

Witness statements are in for tomorrow's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on "Impeachment: Holding Rogue Judges Accountable." Will Chamberlain: georgetown.box.com/s/w60foecfro... Rob Luther: georgetown.box.com/s/21ugst1e58... Me: georgetown.box.com/s/4tmr2fhnj3... Show starts at 2:30 ET:

I guess we’ve answered the question of what it would take to knock the Epstein files off the top of the news cycle…

Witness statements are in for tomorrow's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on "Impeachment: Holding Rogue Judges Accountable." Will Chamberlain: georgetown.box.com/s/w60foecfro... Rob Luther: georgetown.box.com/s/21ugst1e58... Me: georgetown.box.com/s/4tmr2fhnj3... Show starts at 2:30 ET: