Did lightning strike the Washington Monument during DC's July 4 fireworks? A remarkable photo sparked the question. We examined the image and video to see what most likely happened: www.capitalweather.com/lightning-ap... Photo by @AlyssaNegvesky on X

The iPhone camera gods blessed me today with this photo during the DC fireworks show so I thought I’d share

Iconic line from @stevevladeck.bsky.social here in response to Will Baude’s SCOTUS boosterism www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/o...

Fourth (but *not* last) #SCOTUS ruling is in Pung v. Isabella County. For a (basically unanimous) Court, Justice Alito holds that, in a tax sale, neither the Fifth nor Eighth Amendment requires the government to compensate former owners based on the hypothetical fair market value of their property.

#SCOTUS has posted a new version of Justice Alito’s mifepristone dissent that replaces the awkwardly revealing typo with just a dumb typo. There’s a HIPAA joke here somewhere, except it’s not funny: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Other than discovering that I’m apparently John Oliver’s son, @lastweektonight.com’s deep dive into the shadow docket is really quite good: www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKeq...

We live in a time dominated by deeply unserious people making deeply unserious arguments in support of tragically serious results that serious people would have both avoided and known to avoid.

Someone really ought to write a book about the significance of #SCOTUS doing so many major things through unsigned and unexplained rulings, and how so much of it really is a recent phenomenon.

Via @nytopinion.nytimes.com, my quick take on today's #SCOTUS argument in the birthright citizenship case. TL;DR: The justices labored mightily to make sure Trump will lose *this* case, but in a way that will make it easier for him to avoid at least some similarly resounding defeats going forward:

SCOOP: Federal judiciary approves new Supreme Court defender office to help represent indigent defendants at #SCOTUS. Its full-time director will serve as a counterweight to the U.S. solicitor general in federal criminal cases. The first will be former Kagan clerk and SG atty Ashley Robertson.

congress sounds cool i wish it was real

You guys @stevevladeck.bsky.social absolutely argued for his LIFE out here at the STC mock trial.

Tarble!!!!!

D.C. folks: For something a bit more frivolous, I'll be arguing against Karen Dunn in the Shakespeare Theatre Company's 37th annual "Mock Trial" (N.B.: it's really a moot court) at 7:30 p.m. on February 17. This year's scenario arises out of Othello, and it's ... a doozy. For details and tickets:

"Just like the killing of Renée Good, Saturday morning’s shooting once again raises the question of why it is so damned difficult to hold federal officers—and the federal government itself—accountable if and when they violate our rights." Me on the federal accountability gap—and how to close it:

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...

Do they allow popcorn in Dirksen? Asking for me.

If you haven’t subscribed yet, you should. Sometimes there are funny stories. Sometimes there are troubling stories that make you worry about humanity. And sometimes, it’s just Steve getting roasted in the comments. Either way, it’s never boring. 🥳

Trying to figure out what #SCOTUS just did with #SNAP, and why Justice Jackson temporarily froze the district court's ruling? Via "One First," me on what's going on—and why I think Jackson's move was savvy, notwithstanding the awful circumstances that forced it: www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

My husband took the bar last year and today when I got my results, tell me why my first reaction was “DANG IT HE BEAT ME BY 4 POINTS” (yes we both passed comfortably but I’m still mad)

There's a longstanding debate over the value of law professor amicus briefs at #SCOTUS. I'll just note that the additional briefing the Court ordered today in the Illinois National Guard case was in direct response to an amicus brief filed by ... a law professor (@martylederman.bsky.social).

New paper from me offering a holistic assessment of #SCOTUS's behavior on Trump-related emergency applications thus far: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... TL;DR: The ultimate theme of the decisions is a majority bent on preserving *their* supremacy, as such—which is likely to only be self-defeating.

Never been so proud to be a fellow Georgetown law grad 😭 Been rooting for Ashley since day one, so glad she pulled out the W!!!!

Today's bonus "One First" goes deep into Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in the ICE roving patrols case: "If this is the kind of analysis that’s driving the justices’ votes in the other Trump-related cases, perhaps it really is understandable why the Court is so often declining to explain itself."

settings > content & media > autoplay video & gifs = off

For today's bonus "One First," I wrote about the increasingly noisy claim that legal constraints don't really matter in the current moment—why it's utterly belied by what's actually happening on the ground (and by what law can actually *do*); and why, in many respects, it's affirmatively dangerous:

I am once again asking for everything to stop happening thanks

me as a legal journalist: ok wait omg

Didn’t have “figuring out how to stream a football podcast on my TV” on my bingo card, but life is weird that way.

A very relevant post for this particular morning

What Mark said. It's understandable why so many are so wary of #SCOTUS. But even *if* there were five votes to revisit Obergefell (and I'm skeptical), this just *isn't* the case in which even those justices would want to do it.

Two things can be true: 1) The President has legal authority over the D.C. police and the D.C. National Guard that he doesn't have *anywhere else* in the country; & 2) Even if this doesn't set a legal precedent, it sets an ominous *political* precedent for pretextually overriding local government.

Just tapping this sign, for no particular reason.

Three week update: I took the July 2021 multiple choice portion of the bar as a practice test and YEP I CAN CONFIRM THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED 👍🏼 😅

Bar prep in 2 photos (i.e., after bombing a secured transactions practice essay vs. after killing a civ pro practice essay two hours later)

A little over 2 weeks out from the DC bar and I’m now understanding why Virginia requiring business attire to take the bar is so wild. WHY

So… how does one study for the bar when all of the laws are changing? Asking for a friend (it’s me, I’m the friend) ((looking at you, nationwide injunctions test!!))

Kagan apologizes for citing herself in Paxton dissent ❤️

Sanctions for anyone who doesn’t link to the opinion or the indictment

A universal injunction against late afternoon legal news

Apparently, no one got it. Guess they haven’t read it—just like @ksvesq.bsky.social. (📷: @musicadamt.bsky.social)

We’re up to at least 97 cases in which district courts have blocked Trump policies—from 73 different judges (appointed by seven different presidents) in 25 different district courts across 10 circuits. Today’s “One First” looks at what critics of these rulings are leaving out of their narratives:

The Trump administration’s 17th(!!) emergency application asks #SCOTUS for a stay in the “D.V.D.” third-country removals case. Even if the government has a colorable argument against jurisdiction, as I explain at “One First,” the “emergency” is almost entirely one of its own (disingenuous) making:

The UM Club of DC hosted an event where I got to talk about LAWLESS with Steve Vladeck! And as you can tell we … had a good time 🤣😂😆 @stevevladeck.bsky.social I can’t promise the book alone will be QUITE as much fun, but IMHO it’s still a good time 😀 : bookshop.org/p/books/lawl...

For "One First," I took a deeper dive into Friday afternoon's *very* significant #SCOTUS Alien Enemies Act ruling—including why it effectively freezes AEA removals for the foreseeable future and its (much) broader potential impact on *all* attempts to bring nationwide challenges to Trump policies:

Just filed at #SCOTUS: Our reply brief in Wheeler, a cert. petition asking the justices to take up our challenge to the constitutionality of "short-martials" — the involuntary bench trials Congress has required for certain special courts-martial since 2019: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

Via "One First," me on why Stephen Miller's riff on suspending habeas corpus is not just factually and legally wrong (in multiple respects), but reflects a dangerous escalation in the Trump administration's rhetorical attacks on the courts: www.stevevladeck.com/p/148-suspen...

Here is what Justice Souter wrote about Justice Stevens when he died six years ago

NEW: the justices' statements on the passing of David Souter