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...](đź“„.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...](đź“„.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](đź“„.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...](đź“„.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](đź“„.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...](đź“„.pdf ) [supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf...](đź“„.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 →
Re-upping this “One First” post from April asking—and trying to answer—five questions about the domestic use of the military: [142. Five Questions About Dome...](
142. Five Questions About Domestic Use of the Military
The federal government's authorities to use the military for domestic law enforcement are old, broad, and vague. They may soon become far more rele...
 )