Профиль

In addition to having no experience in immigration, their website shows Ilya Shapiro (!) and disgraced former law prof Joshua Wright (!) as Senior Counsel. I don't think this massive contract was awarded to give immigrant children effective, zealous advocacy. burkegroup.law/our-team/

Our Team - BURKE LAW GROUP, PLLCOur Teamburkegroup.law

ICYMI. Essential reading from @stevevladeck.bsky.social open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

242. The "Independent Court" NarrativeEfforts to defend the Supreme Court *because* of its independence miss both the real-world impacts of its behavior and the reason *why* independence matters.open.substack.com

"The central problem with this Court, as I’ve argued (ad nauseam) before, is that this Court does what it pleases, when it pleases—because it has become completely unaccountable." Well put!

Yes, the Supreme Court works, which means that the public respects it and losing parties obey it, as a function of it getting enough of its decisions, in *our* (the public’s) views, right.

Lots of efforts to prop up #SCOTUS have focused on the claim that the Court has shown itself to be “independent” of Trump. As today’s “One First” explains, “independence” may make it possible for the Court to rule against the other branches, but it’s only the means—not the end—of judicial review:

242. The "Independent Court" NarrativeEfforts to defend the Supreme Court *because* of its independence miss both the real-world impacts of its behavior and the reason *why* independence matters.www.stevevladeck.com

open.substack.com/pub/stevevla... Today's essay by @stevevladeck.bsky.social is another example of why you you should become a paid subscriber.

Bonus 241: The Mail-In Voting ApplicationsWhat the Court was asked to do on Monday is narrower than much of the coverage suggests—and a grant of relief would be far less significant than it may appear.open.substack.com

The Trump administration is asking #SCOTUS to put back into effect its executive order giving the USPS more control over mail-in voting. Today's bonus "One First" explains why this is a purely procedural dispute at this juncture (about standing/ripeness)—albeit one the government should still lose:

Bonus 241: The Mail-In Voting ApplicationsWhat the Court was asked to do on Monday is narrower than much of the coverage suggests—and a grant of relief would be far less significant than it may appear.www.stevevladeck.com

Steve tells you all you need to know about these cases and the emergency applications.

In Cisco, #SCOTUS not only (unpersuasively) eviscerated the Alien Tort Statute, but it effectively neutered a 22-year-old precedent for no other reason than that the Republican appointees disagree w/ it. Today’s “One First” goes deep into the ruling—and why stare decisis is really *is* for suckers:

240. The Rise and Fall of the Alien Tort StatuteThe Court's June 23 ruling in Cisco was significant not only for what it means for human rights accountability, but for the justices' approach to stare decisis.www.stevevladeck.com

On Tuesday, the full Fifth Circuit granted DOJ's request for a "precedential stay" of district court rulings holding that the Due Process Clause requires bond hearings for immigration detainees w/in 90 days of their arrest. Today's "One First" explains why that's a really big (and problematic) deal:

Bonus 239: The Fifth Circuit's "Precedential Stay" in Sosnava RodriguezThe Fifth Circuit once again did the government's bidding on immigration detention—this time through an unexplained procedural move I've never seen before.www.stevevladeck.com

I’ve never heard of such a thing: 1. District courts are saying due process demands this 2. three-judge appellate panel says that yes it does 3. Full appellate court says we’ll rehear the case 4. Full court says actually no, and also district courts need to stop doing stuff

"The New Orleans-based court of appeals once again did the Trump administration's bidding on immigration detention—this time through an unexplained procedural move that ... I've never seen before."

That's not a thing. That's an original injunction against the trial courts. That's insane.

From Steve Vladeck, a very good explainer of the legal and procedural issues surrounding bond requirements in immigration cases, and how this is going down in the 5th Circuit, where the district courts are in rebellion. bsky.app/profile/stev...

The most frightening and important analysis you’ll read this week, courtesy of @stevevladeck.bsky.social. open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

239. The Alien Terrorist Removal CourtThe Trump administration has activated a secret 30-year-old court that's never been used. Here's what we know, and why we should (and shouldn't) be worried.open.substack.com

An excellent analysis of a legal procedure that has, until recently, never been used before.

"...the Court has done significant damage to the formal, practical, and moral authority of federal district courts to hold the federal government to account—all while arrogating much of that same authority to itself..."

I just posted my draft of this year’s Harvard Law Review #SCOTUS Foreword—“The Court Against the Courts.” It analyzes the challenges, obstacles, and threats district courts have faced in cases involving the Trump administration—and documents how & why the Court bears responsibility for much of it:

“… the Court has stayed, narrowed, or vacated district court orders, often without full briefing, argument, or reasoned explanation, while treating trial judges' considered factfinding and legal conclusions as provisional placeholders to be revisited at the justices' discretion.”

Important paper from @stevevladeck.bsky.social exploring how SCOTUS is steadily undermining the authority of the judiciary as a whole by treating federal district court rulings as provisional findings that can be whimsically swept adide. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....