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.
Even if the procedural 'convolutions' are difficult to follow, Prof. Vladek did a fantastic job in explaining Justice Jackson's rationale for ruling as she did.
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.
SCOTUS moved to protect humanity under Marshall, and again in the 1930s-1990s. Justice William O. Douglas was from Washington state, and I appreciated his approach.
Most people here seem to assume that Steve Vladeck's speculations are correct, perhaps because it brings them comfort. His speculations may well be correct -- he's very legally astute and well-informed and his speculation makes sense -- but at this point we cannot really know.
It's at least conceivable (to me) that her decision was based on her assessment of the legal arguments, rather than being a purely strategic move. In Fischer v. United States (2024), she sided with a Jan. 6 protestor, which is also something that many of her supporters probably found surprising and discomforting, and that was based on her sincerely held legal principles.
Personally, I have no idea what Justice Jackson's motivations were, nor am I in a position to make a reasonable guess. Maybe we'll be lucky enough to have her say something about it at some point.
It’s a very odd thing to praise any judge, much less a SCOTUS Justice (albeit a minor Associate Justice) for “resort[ing] cunning and wiles to outsmart [her superior in standing and seniority colleagues] obvious intent”! If it IS her colleagues MAJORITARIAN “obvious intent” from their prior rulings and action, she should be acceding to it rather than trying to “outsmart” them. In any event, the reality of Jackson outsmarting them is slim and none. You should be distrusting Jackson’s bonafides, not any of her colleagues, if her intent is to “outsmart” them. She’s a ridiculously bad Justice who even her ideological female soulmates on the court increasingly have had their fill of …..
She's a strong, intelligent black woman who could wipe the floor with the Majority.
She's young & I think there is something extraordinary she is meant to do. I know that just her mere presence is threatening to the status quo, but best get used to her. I can't wait to see the day when she finally comes into her own. She's just a young justice now. Just wait. She is going to be a force some day. The kinda force we need! 😉
Nice deflection from objective observations. That was quick how you immediately reach for the ‘you’re a bigot’ assertion. But it’s really pathetic. People read that exchange and think I’ll if you. In this setting it usually means you’re not comfortable with the legal substance. That’s ok. Unfortunately that’s also the case with Jackson. How do you explain Sotomayor and Kagan rejecting Jackson’s hyperbolic assertions in these dissents? A fellow female Justice says Jackson’s ideology is that if a “judicial supremacist”? Apparently, Jackson is upset that the Court majority is rejecting District Court judges’ legal analyses. Last time I checked district courts are inferior courts to SCOTUS.
What you’re seeing here is that Jackson really isn’t a very strong lawyer. In terms of her skills and, certainly, in her writings. She’s a bit of Chicken Little in her understanding of her colleagues legal views. Constantly taking liberties in her harsh, even juvenile rhetorical attacks. Shes not making friends of colllegues she could learn from instead of alienating them, her ideological soulmates on the Left to boot.
“Last time I checked district courts are inferior courts to SCOTUS.” Are you serious? District courts may not have the last word but Trump’s boot lickers on SCOTUS have turned our highest court into one of the most inferior courts in the country’s history. They are corrupt at every turn.
District courts have held their own and ruled according to the law. Whether Constitutionally deemed 'inferior' is not the issue. It is courts deviating from well-settled precedent, 'stare decisis' that should give us all pause.
Alexis, Article III of the Constitution: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Ya, I am serious. There is a reason the drafters of the Constitution used that language. Every written, noxious ‘burp and fart’ from some jumped up US District Court judge is not the law of the land. Judicial review of the constitutionality of congressional legislation and executive action was created out of the whole cloth to borrow a phrase from nothing in Marbury v. Madison without a basis in the text of the Constitution itself. So, while the idea of judicial review has a long history, the idea that some District Court judge (like McConnell in Delaware who bought his judgeship by spreading a lot of money around on Democrat state politicians) says jump and the President must ask, how high?, is nonsense. Even Justice Jackson knows McConnell’s ruling is without basis in law. That’s why she granted the stay. Your contempt for the majority of SCOTUS justices might give you pause (and cause) to doubt the entire basis of Marbury v. Madison. Welcome to the law school of hard knocks.
This doesn't make any sense. All of the Justices are equal in standing. Even the Chief Justice only gets some minor benefits, due to being the chief. But they all get 1 vote, so I'm not sure why you're calling her a "minor Associate Justice."
"Junior" seems more apt and less judgmental than "minor". If a recent NY Times article is any indication, there is a hierarchy within the Supreme Court, apparently based on tenure, even though they all have one vote.
For example, the article says "As the senior liberal, Justice Sotomayor assigns the principal dissents," and it notes that Justice Jackson "was the junior justice, assigned to tasks like serving on the cafeteria committee and answering the door to the justices’ private conference room in case of a knock."
"The Debate Dividing the Supreme Court’s Liberal Justices" by Jodi Kantor, October 31, 2025:
She's a strong, intelligent black woman who could wipe the floor with the Majority.
She's young & I think there is something extraordinary she is meant to do. I know that just her mere presence is threatening to the status quo, but best get used to her. I can't wait to see the day when she finally comes into her own. She's just a young justice now. Just wait. She is going to be a force some day. The kinda force we need! 😉
I think she's a force already! I approve her threading the needle, or Occam's razor, whatever. It's late. She's picking up where Ruth Bader Ginsburg left off.
Justice Jackson did not in fact resort to "cunning and wile." The issue was appropriately before her in her capacity as Circuit Justice of the 1st Circuit, and the order issued was well within her discretion under the law and S.Ct rules. The rest of your comment is drivel. You can try to take a swing at Justice Jackson's intelligence and her "bona fides," but you better have something better than sexism and racial prejudice. Becaue Justice Jackson "is way out of your league."
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.
It is a great pleasure to see legal minds at work. No, really. In a past life, I had occasion to admire lawyers’ careful use of language. You all just took it a step further.
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.
“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.
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.
So the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to literally allow them to starve people for purely political reasons when they could just fund their EBT cards and allow them to buy food. WTF indeed.
Damn she is brilliant! When I saw that she did the order by herself, that she stayed the stay for 48 hours after they could do the rolling they would say they would do as soon as possible, I knew that she was working the court.
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.
Even if the procedural 'convolutions' are difficult to follow, Prof. Vladek did a fantastic job in explaining Justice Jackson's rationale for ruling as she did.
Indeed he did/does.
Although, Shakespeare misinterpreted.....
true … although I was going with the popular understanding of the line.
Excellent, as usual. Will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next number of days.
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.
SCOTUS moved to protect humanity under Marshall, and again in the 1930s-1990s. Justice William O. Douglas was from Washington state, and I appreciated his approach.
Most people here seem to assume that Steve Vladeck's speculations are correct, perhaps because it brings them comfort. His speculations may well be correct -- he's very legally astute and well-informed and his speculation makes sense -- but at this point we cannot really know.
It's at least conceivable (to me) that her decision was based on her assessment of the legal arguments, rather than being a purely strategic move. In Fischer v. United States (2024), she sided with a Jan. 6 protestor, which is also something that many of her supporters probably found surprising and discomforting, and that was based on her sincerely held legal principles.
Personally, I have no idea what Justice Jackson's motivations were, nor am I in a position to make a reasonable guess. Maybe we'll be lucky enough to have her say something about it at some point.
It’s a very odd thing to praise any judge, much less a SCOTUS Justice (albeit a minor Associate Justice) for “resort[ing] cunning and wiles to outsmart [her superior in standing and seniority colleagues] obvious intent”! If it IS her colleagues MAJORITARIAN “obvious intent” from their prior rulings and action, she should be acceding to it rather than trying to “outsmart” them. In any event, the reality of Jackson outsmarting them is slim and none. You should be distrusting Jackson’s bonafides, not any of her colleagues, if her intent is to “outsmart” them. She’s a ridiculously bad Justice who even her ideological female soulmates on the court increasingly have had their fill of …..
Careful your bigotry is showing
She's a strong, intelligent black woman who could wipe the floor with the Majority.
She's young & I think there is something extraordinary she is meant to do. I know that just her mere presence is threatening to the status quo, but best get used to her. I can't wait to see the day when she finally comes into her own. She's just a young justice now. Just wait. She is going to be a force some day. The kinda force we need! 😉
Nice deflection from objective observations. That was quick how you immediately reach for the ‘you’re a bigot’ assertion. But it’s really pathetic. People read that exchange and think I’ll if you. In this setting it usually means you’re not comfortable with the legal substance. That’s ok. Unfortunately that’s also the case with Jackson. How do you explain Sotomayor and Kagan rejecting Jackson’s hyperbolic assertions in these dissents? A fellow female Justice says Jackson’s ideology is that if a “judicial supremacist”? Apparently, Jackson is upset that the Court majority is rejecting District Court judges’ legal analyses. Last time I checked district courts are inferior courts to SCOTUS.
What you’re seeing here is that Jackson really isn’t a very strong lawyer. In terms of her skills and, certainly, in her writings. She’s a bit of Chicken Little in her understanding of her colleagues legal views. Constantly taking liberties in her harsh, even juvenile rhetorical attacks. Shes not making friends of colllegues she could learn from instead of alienating them, her ideological soulmates on the Left to boot.
“Last time I checked district courts are inferior courts to SCOTUS.” Are you serious? District courts may not have the last word but Trump’s boot lickers on SCOTUS have turned our highest court into one of the most inferior courts in the country’s history. They are corrupt at every turn.
District courts have held their own and ruled according to the law. Whether Constitutionally deemed 'inferior' is not the issue. It is courts deviating from well-settled precedent, 'stare decisis' that should give us all pause.
Alexis, Article III of the Constitution: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
Ya, I am serious. There is a reason the drafters of the Constitution used that language. Every written, noxious ‘burp and fart’ from some jumped up US District Court judge is not the law of the land. Judicial review of the constitutionality of congressional legislation and executive action was created out of the whole cloth to borrow a phrase from nothing in Marbury v. Madison without a basis in the text of the Constitution itself. So, while the idea of judicial review has a long history, the idea that some District Court judge (like McConnell in Delaware who bought his judgeship by spreading a lot of money around on Democrat state politicians) says jump and the President must ask, how high?, is nonsense. Even Justice Jackson knows McConnell’s ruling is without basis in law. That’s why she granted the stay. Your contempt for the majority of SCOTUS justices might give you pause (and cause) to doubt the entire basis of Marbury v. Madison. Welcome to the law school of hard knocks.
I am not here to debate with you. I'm right, and you are wrong, so eff you
This doesn't make any sense. All of the Justices are equal in standing. Even the Chief Justice only gets some minor benefits, due to being the chief. But they all get 1 vote, so I'm not sure why you're calling her a "minor Associate Justice."
"Junior" seems more apt and less judgmental than "minor". If a recent NY Times article is any indication, there is a hierarchy within the Supreme Court, apparently based on tenure, even though they all have one vote.
For example, the article says "As the senior liberal, Justice Sotomayor assigns the principal dissents," and it notes that Justice Jackson "was the junior justice, assigned to tasks like serving on the cafeteria committee and answering the door to the justices’ private conference room in case of a knock."
"The Debate Dividing the Supreme Court’s Liberal Justices" by Jodi Kantor, October 31, 2025:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/31/us/politics/supreme-court-kagan-jackson-liberal-justices.html
She's a strong, intelligent black woman who could wipe the floor with the Majority.
She's young & I think there is something extraordinary she is meant to do. I know that just her mere presence is threatening to the status quo, but best get used to her. I can't wait to see the day when she finally comes into her own. She's just a young justice now. Just wait. She is going to be a force some day. The kinda force we need! 😉
I think she's a force already! I approve her threading the needle, or Occam's razor, whatever. It's late. She's picking up where Ruth Bader Ginsburg left off.
We need eight more like Justice Jackson.
Justice Jackson did not in fact resort to "cunning and wile." The issue was appropriately before her in her capacity as Circuit Justice of the 1st Circuit, and the order issued was well within her discretion under the law and S.Ct rules. The rest of your comment is drivel. You can try to take a swing at Justice Jackson's intelligence and her "bona fides," but you better have something better than sexism and racial prejudice. Becaue Justice Jackson "is way out of your league."
A Justice's job is to argue her case with her colleagues, not to accede to their views because they are the majority.
Troll 🧌
thank you for swift analysis, and elucidation. i guess i get it, but bottom line as you suggested, is just plain cruel.
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.
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.
Not a lawyer but spent many years with them in child welfare court, I heartily concur!!
It is a great pleasure to see legal minds at work. No, really. In a past life, I had occasion to admire lawyers’ careful use of language. You all just took it a step further.
Thank you for taking time out of your Friday night to explain this to us!
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.
“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.
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 would say yes. I’m still debating if Trump owns a few SC justices. He sure does keep them busy
In my humble and completely non-legal opinion, "Yep".
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. :-(
So the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to literally allow them to starve people for purely political reasons when they could just fund their EBT cards and allow them to buy food. WTF indeed.
Or Elon Musk could donate less than 1% of his net worth for that purpose. The wealth inequality in this country has become surreal.
Damn she is brilliant! When I saw that she did the order by herself, that she stayed the stay for 48 hours after they could do the rolling they would say they would do as soon as possible, I knew that she was working the court.
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!
Thank you for spending a portion of your Friday evening giving us this much-needed perspective.