Share this page!

Enter Twitter Thread URL to Unroll

Needs to be the full URL like: https://twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on Twitter App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
@steve_vladeck
May 11 • 9 tweets • 3 min read Twitter logo Read on Twitter
1. Starting a running #thread on the decision(s) that come down from #SCOTUS starting at 10:00 ET today.

All we publicly know is that one or more rulings are coming from among the 45 cases that were argued earlier this Term.

How many rulings, and which ones, well... stay tuned.
2. And while we're waiting, if you're not already subscribed to my weekly #SCOTUS newsletter, "One First," it might be a good time to check it out!

stevevladeck
dot
substack
dot
com
3. The press corps is reporting that there are "three boxes" (literally the boxes from which hard copies of the opinions are distributed).

That doesn't tell us how many we're getting (since we don't know the length of each one), but it probably means ... a bunch.

Here we go...
4. First (but not last) decision in in Santos-Zacaria (an immigration case). Justice Jackson for a (mostly) unanimous Court makes it a smidge easier for non-citizens to challenge removal orders:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…
5. Second (but not last) decision is in the pork producers case. The vote count and rationale is a huge mess, but the bottom line appears to be that California's requirements for how pork sold in the state is produced outside the state is *upheld*:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…
6. Near as I can tell, the bottom-line vote count is *5-4,* with Justice Jackson(!) joining Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Kavanaugh in dissent. They would have sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit and kept alive the pork producers' challenge.
7. Third (but not last) decision is in the Puerto Rico financial oversight board case. 8-1 Court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, holds that the statute creating the board does *not* clearly abrogate Puerto Rico's sovereign immunity:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…
8. Fourth and fifth (last two) decisions are the public corruption cases, Percoco and Ciminelli.

The Court reverses the lower courts in both.

Percoco (Alito for unanimous Court): supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…

Ciminelli (Thomas for unanimous Court):

supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…
9. That's it for today. Five rulings total; 40 to go. The pork producers case is probably the headline from today, but none of the highest-profile cases came down.

The next possible chance for opinions, as of now, appears to be next Thursday.

More analysis to come...

/end

• • •

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
Apr 29
Two things can be true:

1. We’re going to disagree re whether specific conduct by individual #SCOTUS Justices crosses the relevant ethical lines; &

2. Institutional accountability requires there to *be* ethical lines, which shouldn’t be up to individual Justices to self-police.
We spend so much energy on (1) that we’re missing why (2) is important: If there was public faith that the Justices were being held to meaningful standards by anyone *other than* the press, there’d be less sensationalism around press reports that may or may not reveal misconduct.
I’ll have a lot more to say about this in Monday’s “One First.” I just think there’s a lot of talking past each other where we’re missing the point on which there ought to be common ground:

An independent judiciary does not mean—and has never meant—an unaccountable judiciary.
Read 4 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
Apr 19
Here's a running #thread on #SCOTUS's decisions in argued cases to be handed down today.

"Two boxes" of opinions in the press room means that we're almost certainly getting *more than* one ruling starting at 10:00 ET.
First (but not last) decision in an argued case is in MOAC Mall Holdings (bankruptcy). Justice Jackson for a unanimous Court holds that section 363(m) is *not* jurisdictional:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf…

(This is not a big case outside of bankruptcy law.)

At least one more to go.
A good indicator of why the Court is so far behind in getting rulings out in argued cases: MOAC was argued on December 5, and yet a 15-page, unanimous opinion with no separate concurrences took over four months to get out.
Read 7 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
Apr 19
On #mifepristone, four possible results from #SCOTUS today:

1) Grant stay pending appeal;

2) Deny stay pending appeal;

3) Weird mixed ruling; or

4) No ruling.

(1) means no change to mifepristone access anytime soon; (2)-(4) mean big changes starting Thurs. My money’s on (1).
Also, the Court’s ruling on the stay could come literally at any time today (or, per option (4), not come at all), and there will be no advance public notice that it’s nigh.

We also won’t know the vote count unless four Justices publicly dissent.

Welcome to the shadow docket.
Finally, the Justices already have a busy day ahead; we expect one or more decisions in argued cases starting at 10:00 ET (note: this *won’t* include the mifepristone ruling); and then they’re hearing one regularly scheduled oral argument.

So stay tuned… Image
Read 4 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
Apr 14
#SCOTUS and #mifepristone: A brief🧵on what to expect.

First, DOJ and Danco will file applications for emergency relief later this a.m. to freeze the rest of Kacsmaryk's order.

They'll seek two things:

1. A stay pending appeal; and

2. An "administrative" stay in the interim.
Because the rest of Kacsmaryk's order goes into effect at midnight tonight (12:00 a.m. CT Saturday), there isn't time for the full Court to rule on the full stay pending appeal.

Instead, the focus today is the request for an "administrative" stay (freezing things temporarily).
That request goes to Justice Alito as Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit.

And even though you may think the result is thus foreordained, Alito (like the other Justices) has previously *issued* administrative* stays even when he ultimately didn't vote for a stay on the merits: ImageImage
Read 5 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
Apr 13
Late last night, a divided Fifth Circuit panel (by what was effectively a 2-1 vote) issued a super-complicated ruling freezing *part* of Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision (that had purported to stay the FDA’s approval of mifepristone), but only *part* of it:

drive.google.com/file/d/1uiqFoJ…
The panel ruled that the challenge to the 2000 approval of mifepristone itself is likely time-barred, so it froze that part of the ruling. But it *didn’t* freeze Kacsmaryk’s block of the 2016 and 2021 revisions that (1) make mifepristone available up to 10 weeks; and (2) by mail.
In other words, barring further intervention from #SCOTUS, as of 12:00 Saturday morning, mifepristone will no longer be approved for abortion between 7 and 10 weeks of pregnancy (it *will be* approved before); and it will no longer be approved for distribution by mail.
Read 7 tweets
Steve Vladeck Profile picture
Apr 4
The en banc D.C. Circuit has *finally* decided al-Hela (the major #GTMO due process case).

We don't have the opinions yet, but it *appears* that the court has rejected two of al-Hela's due process arguments (assuming due process applies), and remanded a third.

IOW, a huge punt.
So al-Hela can argue in the district court that the fact that he's being held *after* having been cleared by the Periodic Review Board violates (substantive) due process. (This is probably what provoked the four dissenters.)

But he loses on his two other due process challenges.
My best guess is that the 11 judges divided as to whether he loses the first two arguments because due process is *satisfied* or because it doesn't apply in the first place.

And so the 7-4 vote is likely on the third issue — over whether the PRB claim should even be remanded.
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

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

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Send Email!

:(