Профиль

The responses from the plaintiffs aren't due until 4 p.m. (ET). There's no way that #SCOTUS will rule on the applications today.

1) Making agencies less powerful doesn’t make the executive branch less powerful. 2) In any event, you don’t get Congress to do its job by preventing it from doing its job.

I wrote about the practice here: www.stevevladeck.com/p/90-petitio...

90. Petitions for RehearingThe aftermath of the Trump immunity case provides a useful foil for one of the nerdier niches of Supreme Court practice, followed by some some (unrelated) thoughts about Saturday’s newswww.stevevladeck.com

www.stevevladeck.com/p/90-petitio...

90. Petitions for RehearingThe aftermath of the Trump immunity case provides a useful foil for one of the nerdier niches of Supreme Court practice, followed by some some (unrelated) thoughts about Saturday’s newswww.stevevladeck.com

I think this order itself does almost nothing, but that, as the post suggests, it will soon become a precedent for orders that do … more.

Yup, although this is an even sharper example than we’d had previously.

3/3 (sorry): And on the precedent point, this is exactly *why* #SCOTUS's mischief last year in Boyle and NIH is so harmful. It completely inverts emergency relief, where district courts *can't* issue interim relief for anyone other than the plaintiffs, but circuit courts *can* to bar *all* claims.

2/2: Novelty aside, the point of my post was to explain why this is also legally incoherent. Separate from a "precedential stay" with no precedent, there is no colorable argument that the government both (1) meets the criteria for *any* emergency relief at this juncture; and (2) didn't *until* now.

1/2: I think it's *very* important to stress that this is *not* what Barrett endorsed in her U.S. v. Texas concurrence. That was a temporary, "administrative" stay for true emergencies, not a weird "stay pending appeal" in between a vacated panel ruling and en banc rehearing. This is totally novel.

It's a published, unexplained stay pending appeal in a context in which the government specifically asked for a "precedential stay." So the Fifth Circuit issued a published order with no reasoning.

Nope.

Basically.

This is obviously true. But the even more ridiculous part is why it was insufficient, even after granting rehearing en banc, to merely vacate that opinion pending full court review. There's no answer to that question that wouldn't have required DOJ to seek emergency relief *before* the panel ruled.

The quotation marks might have been a clue that this wasn’t serious.

Animal House Pearl Harbor QuoteALT: Animal House Pearl Harbor Quotestatic.klipy.com

Right back at ya.

As the post explains, because of who *does* get to review the evidence. I wouldn’t call it “optimistic” so much as “confident” that judges will be skeptical.

Having an HLR-imposed word limit might have ... helped with that.

Really looking forward to your reaction...

I had some … alternative title ideas along similar lines.

If only I'd had a social media-savvy RA who could've made this happen...