Post

More from @steve_vladeck

Steve Vladeck

@steve_vladeck

Aug 27

Oklahoma has filed a new emergency application asking #SCOTUS to set aside the EPA's new limits on methane pollution.

This is the 23rd pending emergency application—and the third different EPA rule that applicants are currently asking the justices to block on the shadow docket:

In all three of these cases, the *only* ruling by a lower court was a summary ruling by the D.C. Circuit denying emergency relief; there's been no other litigation. And in all three of those cases, those rulings came from unanimous *and* ideologically diverse D.C. Circuit panels.

Here's the power-plant order:

Here's the MATS order:

Here's the methane order: law360.com/articles/18601…
subscriber.politicopro.com/eenews/f/eenew…
assets.law360news.com/1856000/185666…

Read 4 tweets

Steve Vladeck

@steve_vladeck

Mar 26

1/10: For all of the focus on its substantive rulings, some of the Fifth Circuit's most indefensible behavior comes in technical, procedural contexts.

A recent example involves the Liberty Energy case, one of nine suits challenging the SEC's new investor climate-disclosure rule.

2/10: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2112, if a new federal regulation is challenged within 10 days in at least two courts of appeals, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation holds a lottery—and consolidates those challenges before one of the courts of appeals in which they're pending.

3/10: § 2112 was triggered here—because challenges to the SEC rule were filed in six different circuits. Thus, there was only a 1/6 chance that the Fifth Circuit would "win" the lottery—and keep jurisdiction over the Liberty Energy case (or the others filed in the Fifth Circuit).

Read 11 tweets

Steve Vladeck

@steve_vladeck

Mar 20

#BREAKING: #SB4 is blocked again.

A majority of the Fifth Circuit panel hearing argument on Texas's stay application *tomorrow morning* just issued an order "dissolving" the "administrative stay" that a different panel imposed on March 2. So the injunction goes back into effect.

Here’s the order and Judge Oldham’s dissent:

Here's my best guess:

The panel had not been planning to move any faster until it was provoked by Justice Barrett's concurring opinion this afternoon.

Then, it agreed to at least look like it was moving faster.

Then, two of the three judges decided to *actually* move faster.

Read 4 tweets

Steve Vladeck

@steve_vladeck

Feb 23

1. A quick #thread on where things stand with former President Trump's application to #SCOTUS to keep the January 6 prosecution on hold.

First, we expect whatever the Court does to be a "miscellaneous order." Such an order can theoretically come at any time and without warning.

2. Second, although the justices *are* having a regularly scheduled Conference today, chances are that the Court has already made whatever decision it's going to make—and we're just waiting for the disposition.

So why has it taken 2 weeks so far? It's *impossible* to know, but:

3. My best guess is that one of two things has happened:

Possibility 1 is that the Court has voted to *deny* the stay, and some number of justices are writing separate opinions respecting that result (concurrences/ "statements"/dissents).

Two weeks is *not* that long for that.

Read 8 tweets

Steve Vladeck

@steve_vladeck

Jan 4

I may be an outlier, but I don't see a jurisdictional problem in Trump's interlocutory appeal of Judge Chutkan's rejection of immunity in the 1/6 prosecution.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there *is* immunity, it wouldn't mean much if it could only be raised post-trial.

And although #SCOTUS has held that the "collateral order doctrine" is more limited in the criminal context than in the civil context (e.g., Midland Asphalt), the Court has also been clear that *constitutional* immunities from suit are one of the few contexts in which it applies.

All that's left is the argument that this is different because any immunity, if it exists, isn't *expressly* mentioned in the Constitution. But *if* the Constitution creates an immunity from suit, do we really think interlocutory appellate JX turns on how specifically it does so?

Read 4 tweets

Steve Vladeck

@steve_vladeck

Aug 9, 2023

In fact, since Does 1–3 v. Mills, Barrett has publicly voted to grant or vacate *14* stays in cases in which at least one Justice publicly dissented.

Of the 8 Josh … neglects, 7 came from *other* circuits; the 8th stayed a decision that a *moderate* Fifth Circuit panel hadn’t.

In other words, the remarkable pattern that Josh purports to divine from the selective subset of orders on which he focuses only exists *because* he is ignoring virtually all of the other orders that disprove the existence of such a pattern.

The 14:

1. Crow
2. NFIB
3. Ohio v. DOL
4. Milligan
5. Caster
6. Navy SEALs
7. American Rivers
8. NetChoice
9. Ardoin
10. Hamm v. Smith
11. AZ v. Mayorkas*
12. Danco
13. FDA
14. Vanderstok

* — Josh accounts for this by asserting that it doesn’t count if the Court granted cert.

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Steve Vladeck

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @steve_vladeck

Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!