A very quick explainer on why Justice Jackson issued an "administrative stay" in the SNAP case late on Friday night, and on what's likely to happen next
Thank you for so quickly taking the time to explain why Jackson took the action. Thank you , also, for your clearly humanitarian attitude toward the issue.
Clear ain't the first word that comes to a non lawyers mind. . tho no shade on attny vladeck. These convolutions of the so-called law are why many of us agree with shakespeare.
I do feel better after reading this, and it's been years since I've thought seriously about stays pending appeal vs. administrative appeals but the larger issue is horrifying. That a Supreme Court Justice is so (completely and correctly) assured of the inherent "malum in se" of her own colleagues that she had to resort to cunning and wiles to outsmart their obvious intent, is why the non-legal population distrusts and fears the high court, rather than sees the court as the safeguard of their freedoms.
I hope you get some rest this weekend. It must be exhausting to get out all of these newsletters at every new “ emergency”. Thank you for your efforts.
“I like th’ unlettered clerk, can only cry ‘Amen.’” Thanks for taking the time so late in the day, to explain the dissonance of the news media on this one.
Thanks...it gets more convoluted with every ruling...it is indeed hard to keep focus on the actual hungry American children and families when they are reduced to talking points in legal cases.
It is comforting to have Justice Jackson exercise her discretion in the manner she did, given the time constraints. What is disturbing is to know that when the Administration is on the losing end of a case, it files for SC relief, asking for an expedited ruling and the SC majority gives relief without a written decision discussing the equities of the relief requested. Doesn’t the lack of an explanation for the SC’s decisions serve to encourage the administration to appeal every time it loses in the DC and COA?
as i understood Steve Vladeck’s commentary, he was saying that Jackson actually issued a LONGER, MORE DETAILED directive (the stay) than would normally be issued. these are simple directives — like a traffic cop waving a hand or blowing a whistle at a crowded intersection — simple directives to guide the actions of the parties involved, in a fast-moving situation. these simple directives do not require an explanation of the “reasoning” — just as the traffic cop doesn’t need to explain why they are waving one line of cars to proceed ahead of the other.
all the parties are instructed to wait — or given permission to wait — until the case is reviewed by the appeals court. the appeals court judges are the ones who need to explain their reasoning.
I listened to your other post this morning when you said 4 posts this week is quite enough (or something to that effect). And when I saw the SCOTUS stay, I was like OH NO, poor Prof Vladek! and soon enough, got this update in my mailbox that you had written another post.
Thank you! It is complicated and the outcome is uncertain, with cruelty the [d]ump norm. But J. Jackson acted with bravery and brilliance. Stitching patches of decency in the shambles we now know as the USSupreme Court.
Thank you for so quickly taking the time to explain why Jackson took the action. Thank you , also, for your clearly humanitarian attitude toward the issue.
This clear explainer is most appreciated!
Clear ain't the first word that comes to a non lawyers mind. . tho no shade on attny vladeck. These convolutions of the so-called law are why many of us agree with shakespeare.
thank you for swift analysis, and elucidation. i guess i get it, but bottom line as you suggested, is just plain cruel.
WTAF is perhaps the legal term?
Dang it. I should've done that...
No, it was appropriate if not perfect - from one lawyer to another
As a third lawyer on this string, my preference is WTMFAF.
I do feel better after reading this, and it's been years since I've thought seriously about stays pending appeal vs. administrative appeals but the larger issue is horrifying. That a Supreme Court Justice is so (completely and correctly) assured of the inherent "malum in se" of her own colleagues that she had to resort to cunning and wiles to outsmart their obvious intent, is why the non-legal population distrusts and fears the high court, rather than sees the court as the safeguard of their freedoms.
The SC used to be protectors of freedoms abridged by others; now they are more often protecting those abridging others freedoms.
I hope you get some rest this weekend. It must be exhausting to get out all of these newsletters at every new “ emergency”. Thank you for your efforts.
Thank you for taking time out of your Friday night to explain this to us!
“I like th’ unlettered clerk, can only cry ‘Amen.’” Thanks for taking the time so late in the day, to explain the dissonance of the news media on this one.
Thanks...it gets more convoluted with every ruling...it is indeed hard to keep focus on the actual hungry American children and families when they are reduced to talking points in legal cases.
It is comforting to have Justice Jackson exercise her discretion in the manner she did, given the time constraints. What is disturbing is to know that when the Administration is on the losing end of a case, it files for SC relief, asking for an expedited ruling and the SC majority gives relief without a written decision discussing the equities of the relief requested. Doesn’t the lack of an explanation for the SC’s decisions serve to encourage the administration to appeal every time it loses in the DC and COA?
as i understood Steve Vladeck’s commentary, he was saying that Jackson actually issued a LONGER, MORE DETAILED directive (the stay) than would normally be issued. these are simple directives — like a traffic cop waving a hand or blowing a whistle at a crowded intersection — simple directives to guide the actions of the parties involved, in a fast-moving situation. these simple directives do not require an explanation of the “reasoning” — just as the traffic cop doesn’t need to explain why they are waving one line of cars to proceed ahead of the other.
all the parties are instructed to wait — or given permission to wait — until the case is reviewed by the appeals court. the appeals court judges are the ones who need to explain their reasoning.
In my humble and completely non-legal opinion, "Yep".
I would say yes. I’m still debating if Trump owns a few SC justices. He sure does keep them busy
I listened to your other post this morning when you said 4 posts this week is quite enough (or something to that effect). And when I saw the SCOTUS stay, I was like OH NO, poor Prof Vladek! and soon enough, got this update in my mailbox that you had written another post.
I jinxed it. :-(
Thank you!
Thank you for the explanation.
Appreciated the clarification!
Thank you! It is complicated and the outcome is uncertain, with cruelty the [d]ump norm. But J. Jackson acted with bravery and brilliance. Stitching patches of decency in the shambles we now know as the USSupreme Court.
I definitely appreciate your insights!