The Biden administration’s rule-of-law credibility is the big loser; and the Supreme Court’s shadow docket the big winner.
Latest in Supreme Court
Supreme Court precedent compels the conclusion that Trump cannot escape liability for his actions, including encouraging, for his personal gain, the violent disruption of a constitutionally mandated session of Congress.
We’re back, with one slightly-older co-host and another co-host who is ready to drive across the country! Tune in for discussion and debate relating to:
We’re back with a new episode! Tune in as your co-hosts Professor Steve Vladeck and Bobby Chesney discuss and debate:
Justice Sotomayor cites Congress’s possible action on the policy as the reason for the court’s decision.
Two recent Supreme Court rulings could be consequential for the interpretation of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Initial litigation challenging the Biden administration’s immigration policy may have far-reaching implications for executive power, judicial power, federalism and administrative law.
Last month, President Trump nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. We reviewed several of Barrett’s writings to glean what they might reveal about her views on issues important to Lawfare readers.
The Supreme Court today ruled in two cases related to President Trump’s financial records. Both cases were 7-2, with Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting in each. The parties will not get immediate access to Trump’s financial records in either case.
On Sept. 11, the Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction imposed by Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the third country asylum rule recently issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The rule would bar foreign nationals who cross the U.S.-Mexico border from receipt of U.S. asylum when they transit through a third country without applying for protection in that country.