Share this page!

Steve Vladeck Profile picture
Twitter logo
14 Apr, 4 tweets, 2 min read
Correcting an earlier tweet: 22 state AGs joined a letter attacking the constitutionality of D.C. statehood:

ago.wv.gov/Documents/DC%2…

One of the letter's arguments would also call into question the constitutionality of *six* of the AGs' states, as well: AL, IN, KS, MS, OH, & OK.
That's because the letter implies that, when a state cedes territory to the federal gov't, the territory can't later become part of a new state without the ceding state's specific consent. Except that each of these 6 states *includes* examples of territory meeting that criteria.
The letter's other argument—that, once Congress fixed the size of the seat of government at 100 square miles, it couldn't reduce it—is belied by the text of the Constitution ("not exceeding 10 miles square") and history (it hasn't been true since 1846):

My original tweet incorrectly included three additional states in the tally of AGs arguing against their own statehood. But there are (different) reasons why Arkansas, Kentucky, and Missouri would not be similarly situated to D.C. for these purposes, hence the correction.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Steve Vladeck

Steve Vladeck Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @steve_vladeck

Steve Vladeck Profile picture
12 Apr
Yesterday, I posted a thread about how Friday's 5-4 #SCOTUS ruling enjoining CA's #COVID restrictions on in-home gatherings is the latest in a major uptick in status quo-altering rulings on the Court's "shadow docket."

Turns out, there's even more to this story.

Here's Part II:
The specific relief that the Court granted Friday night is an "injunction pending appeal," which bars the enjoined officers from carrying out the blocked policies until and unless the case is conclusively resolved (in favor of the blocked policy) on the merits. Here's the order:
Such an injunction, which operates directly against government officers and is only available when at least two lower courts have already refused to provide such relief, is *supposed* to be exceedingly rare.

Here's Justice Scalia on the comparison with a stay pending appeal:
Read 11 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
10 Apr
#SCOTUS issued another significant ruling on its "shadow docket" late last night, voting 5-4 to block California's #COVID-based restrictions on in-home gatherings insofar as they interfere with religious practice:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…

How often is this happening?

A #thread:
As the chart notes, this is (at least) the *19th* time this Term (since 10/5/2020) that the Justices have used such an emergency ruling to alter the status quo—whether by staying a lower-court ruling; lifting a lower-court stay; or, as here, directly enjoining a government actor.
It's also only the *second* time in these 19 cases that the majority chose to write an opinion *for the Court* that provides a rationale for the decision (and the first such opinion in one of these California cases), even if it's a brief one:
Read 8 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
8 Apr
New Becket Fund amicus brief in support of emergency injunction against California COVID rules attacks criticisms of #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" as "ivory tower objections" by "academics focused solely on the Supreme Court."

supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
I'll leave to others whether Becket is fairly describing the critics. But it's worth stressing that it's clearly mis-describing the criticisms. The objections aren't to the *existence* of an emergency docket; it goes without saying that every court, including #SCOTUS, needs one.
Rather, the objections are to (1) how often #SCOTUS has used such orders to change the status quo recently; (2) usually *without* any reasoning for the Court; (3) in at least apparent defiance of its own standards for granting such relief; & (4) *sometimes*, with no "emergency."
Read 4 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
23 Mar
1. Given all of the chatter on D.C. statehood, I thought I'd post a few quick points about what the Constitution does—and, more importantly, *doesn't*—say about the location and size of the capital.

TL;DR: Admitting (most of) D.C. as a state would be perfectly constitutional.
2. Start with the Constitution itself. Famously, it punts on the location of the capital.

All that Article I says is that Congress will have the power to exclusively regulate the land that becomes "the seat of government of the United States," which must be <= 10 square miles.
3. Critically, the Constitution does not say (1) *where* the capital will be; or (2) whether it must be *exactly* 10 square miles. It deliberately left both of those determinations to Congress.

Enter Alexander Hamilton, the Residence Act of 1790, and "the room where it happens."
Read 11 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
7 Mar
20 minutes into Coming 2 America and this is all I can say.
45 minutes in...
We’ve reached the self-mockery and shameless product placement stage of the proceedings...
Read 6 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
17 Feb
The craziest part of this ongoing Texas crisis (as we enter the *third* night of freezing temperatures and millions without power) is that there's been minimal progress on power *restoration.* If anything, we appear to be going backwards—with more folks losing power than gaining.
Outages happen, especially during crazy weather events like what we had Sunday. But not a drop of precipitation has fallen since early Monday (although we expect some later tonight), and *no* explanation has been provided for why sources that went offline haven't come back on.
This @JesseJenkins thread is remarkably helpful in explaining how we got here. But it also makes clear that "frozen natural gas pipelines" isn't a full explanation for why we haven't been able to make up the deficit:

Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @steve_vladeck has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @steve_vladeck!

Read all threads by @steve_vladeck