By a 7-4 vote, the full Federal Circuit has *affirmed* a lower-court ruling holding that many of President Trump’s tariffs exceed his statutory authority. The ruling won’t go into effect until October 14, though—which gives the Trump administration plenty of time to seek intervention from #SCOTUS: [storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco...](📄.pdf )
“Then they came for Cracker Barrel…”
TL;DR: 5 justices say Trump doesn't have to immediately restore the funding, but 5 *also* signal that the underlying directives are unlawful. That sends a fairly strong (if mixed) message that Trump will lose these cases *eventually,* but only once they're brought in the Court of Federal Claims. RE:
Bluesky Social
Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social)
Splitting 5-4 (with Chief Justice Roberts joining the three Democratic appointees in dissent), #SCOTUS grants *partial* stay to Trump administratio...
 View quoted note →
Splitting 5-4 (with Chief Justice Roberts joining the three Democratic appointees in dissent), #SCOTUS grants *partial* stay to Trump administration in NIH funding case; holds that challenges to grant terminations (but *not* the underlying guidance) need to be filed in the Court of Federal Claims: [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](📄.pdf )
The latest example of an important lower-court ruling adverse to Trump that the administration *isn’t* appealing is last Saturday’s D.C. Circuit decision about restoring public access to data on how the executive branch is (or isn’t) spending appropriated funds. That ruling goes into effect today: [Opinion (DC circuit)](
Opinion (DC circuit)
 )
My own view is that it was *really* smart of D.C. to wait for the Trump admin. to overplay its hand before suing. It's one thing to invoke the emergency police support provision of the Home Rule Act in specific cases; it's something else entirely to claim it allows the feds to *take over* the MPD.
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.
Someone forgot to take down this webpage: [www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/v...](
 
 ) https://amanita.us-east.host.bsky.network/xrpc/com.atproto.sync.getBlob?did=did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv&cid=bafkreiflwmnajqtqww3ququffkanfy5zgywffbfmj2i5qoafy6xahkqsxm
My quick take on Monday afternoon's unexplained #SCOTUS ruling in the Department of Education downsizing case—and how the justices' inconsistent treatment of the (similarly postured) student loan cases during the Biden administration illustrates in technicolor why the Court needs to explain itself: [167. The Inconsistent Court St...](
167. The Inconsistent Court Strikes Again
Comparing Monday's unexplained grant of emergency relief in the Department of Education downsizing case to how the justices handled President Biden...
 )
Since April 4, #SCOTUS has issued 15 rulings on 17 emergency applications filed by Trump (three birthright citizenship apps were consolidated). It has granted relief to Trump ... in all 15 rulings. It has written majority opinions in only 3. Today's order is the 7th with no explanation *at all.* RE:
Bluesky Social
Steve Vladeck (@stevevladeck.bsky.social)
Here we go again: Over an acerbic dissenting opinion by Justice Sotomayor (joined in full by Justices Kagan and Jackson), #SCOTUS, with no explanat...
 View quoted note →