As we enter the season of sweeping numerical claims about the Supreme Court's October 2024 Term, it's worth rehashing out the major flaws that are baked into (almost) all of those assertions.
Your analysis in this post is extraordinarily important, so thank so you very much! It sets the stage for an accurate assessment of what SCOTUS has really been doing. I hope the justices read it! I would venture a guess that at least several of them get the “vibe” but need to see the numbers to appreciate how twisted SCOTUS’s practice has become.
I am just glad to see the stat pac is back. It is better than no stat pac and It dispels myths about the Court. Maybe Mr. Vladeck should use stat pac info as a base then add his own stats. StatPacPlus.
This is a bit of an aside from today's topic, but I think I figured out one possible result from the court ruling as they did in DHS v. D.V.D, the third country removal case, along with Trump v. CASA, the birthright citizenship case, in which they (mostly) blocked universal injunctions.
If the Trump administration denies birthright citizenship to someone they then confront the question as to where they can remove such a person who may not have citizenship or ties to any other country. The answer, according to the SCOTUS majority is, any country they choose! If they move fast enough so the person can't file a challenge (a running theme for Trump 2.0 vs. the courts), Trump can deny citizenship and then, because they have no longer have an obligation to send them to their native country or one they have ties to, ship the stateless person wherever they want.
Clear. But very nerdy. And you are correct - it does feel like arranging deck chairs on the Titanic, Professor.
Your analysis in this post is extraordinarily important, so thank so you very much! It sets the stage for an accurate assessment of what SCOTUS has really been doing. I hope the justices read it! I would venture a guess that at least several of them get the “vibe” but need to see the numbers to appreciate how twisted SCOTUS’s practice has become.
As usual, good analysis. Let's see if anyone at The Dispatch / SCOTUSblog reads your Substack.
I am just glad to see the stat pac is back. It is better than no stat pac and It dispels myths about the Court. Maybe Mr. Vladeck should use stat pac info as a base then add his own stats. StatPacPlus.
I recently forwarded a cop of the stat pac to a friend who asked what he should do with it. Now I have some ideas what to tell him not to do. Thanks
This is a bit of an aside from today's topic, but I think I figured out one possible result from the court ruling as they did in DHS v. D.V.D, the third country removal case, along with Trump v. CASA, the birthright citizenship case, in which they (mostly) blocked universal injunctions.
If the Trump administration denies birthright citizenship to someone they then confront the question as to where they can remove such a person who may not have citizenship or ties to any other country. The answer, according to the SCOTUS majority is, any country they choose! If they move fast enough so the person can't file a challenge (a running theme for Trump 2.0 vs. the courts), Trump can deny citizenship and then, because they have no longer have an obligation to send them to their native country or one they have ties to, ship the stateless person wherever they want.
It's win-win! (for Trump).
As always. I appreciate your insights and explanations. Thank you.
Steve:
What does the court think it is doing? This handling of deportation is anti-American on its face.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/us/politics/supreme-court-migrants-south-sudan.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
NERDISTRY!!!