Steve Vladeck
American legal scholar; professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and CNN Supreme Court analyst. Author of The Shadow Docket (2023). Writes One First, a weekly newsletter on the Supreme Court's rulings, procedures and history.
Steve Vladeck did not write this page.
We collected these quotes from things they published elsewhere, and every quote links to where it was said. They have no account here and have not endorsed this site. Quotes are word for word; the short line under each one is our own restatement, not their wording. Their own site. Is this you? Claim it or ask us to remove it. Or tell us what is wrong here.
Filter All topics · Newest first
-
Their wordsthe Court was also behaving inconsistently, so that it appeared that its rulings were motivated more by the political preferences of a majority of the justices than by the faithful application of neutral legal principles.
↗256. So Unexplained: Justice Alito’s Non-Responsive Emergency Docket Defensestevevladeck.com 1st of 2 in this piece
-
Their wordsfor a Court whose authority depends on diffuse public acceptance that its rulings are principled (if not of the principles themselves), the proliferation of thinly explained precedential rulings in high-profile cases has made it that much harder for that support to be earned.
↗256. So Unexplained: Justice Alito’s Non-Responsive Emergency Docket Defensestevevladeck.com 2nd of 2 in this piece
- 8 days earlier
-
Their wordsIn a nutshell, the book argues that the real problem with today's Court is that it has become unaccountable to any other institution of government-free to do just about whatever it wants, whenever it wants.
↗253. Introducing “The Court We Need”stevevladeck.com 1st of 3 in this piece
-
Our reading
The Supreme Court's recent trend of filing opinions for emergency relief is a positive development.
Their wordsAnd insofar as the Court really is committed to filing opinions of the Court in (almost) every case in which it grants emergency relief, that strikes me as an unequivocally positive development, and one for which the justices should be commended.
↗253. Introducing “The Court We Need”stevevladeck.com 2nd of 3 in this piece
-
Their wordsExpanding the Court would be seen unequivocally for what it is-partisan political power being used for partisan political purposes, which does precisely nothing for the diffuse public support that is the actual source of the Court's power.
↗253. Introducing “The Court We Need”stevevladeck.com 3rd of 3 in this piece
- 7 days earlier
-
Their wordsWhatever other leeway the executive branch may have to restrict press access on national security grounds, hand-picking three outlets to exclude from what the Court's jurisprudence calls a "nonpublic forum" because of the President's disagreement with the putative viewpoint of their reporting is about as close to a textbook violation of the existing precedents as it comes.
↗251. Newsgathering, the First Amendment, and the White Housestevevladeck.com 1st of 2 in this piece
-
Their wordsWhatever folks think about the three outlets Trump singled out here (and remember that I'm a CNN analyst), a world in which the President can categorically exclude any outlet from the White House solely because he dislikes their reporting is one in which any president can construct a press room full of sycophants and other sympathetic mouthpieces for the government's policies.
↗251. Newsgathering, the First Amendment, and the White Housestevevladeck.com 2nd of 2 in this piece
- 7 days earlier
-
Their wordsBut despite variations in their text, they all basically mean the same thing: the ruling at issue is frozen (i.e., it cannot be enforced) until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court acts conclusively on the full appeal-no matter what happens in the lower courts in the interim.
↗249. The Language of Supreme Court Staysstevevladeck.com 1st of 3 in this piece
-
Their wordsI'm not sure how many times I need to say it before people believe I mean it, but it's always a problem when the Court doesn't explain these rulings, even (if not especially) in the rare but non-zero instances in which I think that there are good explanations for them.
↗249. The Language of Supreme Court Staysstevevladeck.com 2nd of 3 in this piece
-
Our reading
The briefing in the mail-in ballots case makes it clear that the application should be denied.
Their wordsMy own view is that the briefing has made it even more abundantly clear why that application should be denied-and that some pretty ugly things could result if it's granted.
↗249. The Language of Supreme Court Staysstevevladeck.com 3rd of 3 in this piece
- 2 weeks earlier
-
Their wordsthere are two independent reasons why Purcell ought never to apply when the federal government is the defendant-and a third reason, for those unpersuaded by the first two, why it ought not to apply in the mail-in ballots cases specifically.
↗247. Should Purcell Apply to the Federal Government?stevevladeck.com 1st of 2 in this piece
-
Their wordsApplying Purcell to the federal government would close the doors of every courthouse, leaving voters without any remedy for even the most nefarious, malicious, or otherwise blatantly unlawful last-minute federal interventions in elections.
↗247. Should Purcell Apply to the Federal Government?stevevladeck.com 2nd of 2 in this piece