Here we go again: Over an acerbic dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor (joined in full by Justices Kagan and Jackson), #SCOTUS, with no explanation, grants a stay in the Department of Education RIFs case—effectively clearing the way for the Trump administration to dismantle much of the agency: [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
Over dissents from Justices Sotomayor & Jackson (and a rare concurrence from Justice Kagan), #SCOTUS "clarifies" that its 6/23 ruling staying a district court's injunction against third-country removals *also* applies to the district court's later order requiring a remedy for those already removed: [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
Fifth ruling from #SCOTUS is in the Texas porn age-verification case. For a 6-3 majority (with the three Democratic appointees dissenting), Justice Thomas *upholds* Texas's age-verification scheme for porn websites against a First Amendment challenge: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](📄.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
Fourth #SCOTUS ruling is in Mahmoud. For a 6-3 majority (with the three Dem. appointees dissenting), Justice Alito sides with parents in challenge to school board's introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](📄.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
Third #SCOTUS ruling is in the universal service fund (non-delegation) case. For a 6-3 majority (with Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting), Justice Kagan *rejects* non-delegation challenge; upholds universal service fund structure and authority: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](📄.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
Fourth (and *last*) ruling from #SCOTUS today is in Riley v. Bondi. For a messy, fractured 5-4 majority (with Justice Gorsuch joining the three Democratic appointees in dissent) narrows judicial review in a small category of complicated immigration appeals: [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...](📄.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
The Supreme Court’s unexplained order on Monday in the third-country removals case, and the continuing controversy over what it does and doesn’t mean, is Exhibit A for why the justices need to provide an explanation at least when they *grant* emergency relief. More in today’s bonus “One First”: [Bonus 161: Why the Court Needs...](
Bonus 161: Why the Court Needs to Explain Itself
The continuing fallout from Monday afternoon’s ruling in the third-country removals case is an object lesson for why the justices should be provi...
 )
Today’s unsigned, unexplained #SCOTUS ruling clearing the way for removals of migrants to third countries without any additional process is a disaster—not just on the merits, but because of the government misbehavior that it not only refuses to punish, but effectively rewards. Me, via “One First”: [161. The Court's Disastrous Ru...](
161. The Court's Disastrous Ruling in the Third-Country Removal Case
The majority did not just greenlight an especially odious immigration policy without any explanation; it did so in a case in which the government d...
 )
Here’s the “Presidential Memorandum”: [www.whitehouse.gov/presidential...](
The White House
Department of Defense Security for the Protection of Department of Homeland Security Functions
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
 ) There’s no Insurrection Act invocation; Trump is federalizing 2000 CA Nat’l Guard personnel only to “protect federal functions.” *Without* invoking the Insurrection Act, anything more would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreicwoikrcr3uazh34pth6x73as65qohim3hgdw5xzomofanhcyy2u4
There are two pathways to what Trump is doing: 1) He is federalizing 2000 National Guard troops; or 2) He is deploying 2000 members of another state’s National Guard with the permission of *that* state’s governor. These posts walk through the relevant authorities—and the questions they raise: RE:
Bluesky Social
Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social)
Re-upping this “One First” post from April asking—and trying to answer—five questions about the domestic use of the military: https://www.s...
 View quoted note →