Steve Vladeck
American legal scholar; professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and CNN Supreme Court analyst. Author of The Shadow Docket (2023). Writes One First, a weekly newsletter on the Supreme Court's rulings, procedures and history.
Steve Vladeck did not write this page. ppll compiled it from their own words, each linked to the source. Is this you? · Report a mistake
What they believe
-
The Supreme Court's emergency docket behavior appears to be motivated more by the political preferences of a majority of the justices than by the faithful application of neutral legal principles.
the Court was also behaving inconsistently, so that it appeared that its rulings were motivated more by the political preferences of a majority of the justices than by the faithful application of neutral legal principles.
stevevladeck.comSaid 6 Oct 2026This on korrents
-
The real problem with the current Supreme Court is its lack of accountability to other branches of government.
In a nutshell, the book argues that the real problem with today's Court is that it has become unaccountable to any other institution of government-free to do just about whatever it wants, whenever it wants.
stevevladeck.comSaid 28 Sept 2026This on korrents
The bold line is korrents’ wording; the quote is theirs. These 2: what they wrote before what they said aloud, one per source, newest first.
Beliefs
Korrents What they believe 12 beliefs — each backed by an exact quote.
Each is a — compiled by korrents.com, not by them: the one-line wordings are korrents', the quotes are theirs.
Recent
The Supreme Court's emergency docket behavior appears to be motivated more by the political preferences of a majority of the justices than by the faithful application of neutral legal principles.
the Court was also behaving inconsistently, so that it appeared that its rulings were motivated more by the political preferences of a majority of the justices than by the faithful application of neutral legal principles.
256. So Unexplained: Justice Alito’s Non-Responsive Emergency Docket Defense Said 6 Oct 2026
The proliferation of thinly explained precedential rulings in high-profile cases makes it harder for the Court to earn diffuse public acceptance that its rulings are principled.
for a Court whose authority depends on diffuse public acceptance that its rulings are principled (if not of the principles themselves), the proliferation of thinly explained precedential rulings in high-profile cases has made it that much harder for that support to be earned.
256. So Unexplained: Justice Alito’s Non-Responsive Emergency Docket Defense Said 6 Oct 2026
The real problem with the current Supreme Court is its lack of accountability to other branches of government.
In a nutshell, the book argues that the real problem with today's Court is that it has become unaccountable to any other institution of government-free to do just about whatever it wants, whenever it wants.
253. Introducing “The Court We Need” Said 28 Sept 2026
Show 9 more
Expanding the Supreme Court would be a partisan use of power that would decrease public support for the institution.
Expanding the Court would be seen unequivocally for what it is-partisan political power being used for partisan political purposes, which does precisely nothing for the diffuse public support that is the actual source of the Court's power.
253. Introducing “The Court We Need” Said 28 Sept 2026
The Supreme Court's recent trend of filing opinions for emergency relief is a positive development.
And insofar as the Court really is committed to filing opinions of the Court in (almost) every case in which it grants emergency relief, that strikes me as an unequivocally positive development, and one for which the justices should be commended.
253. Introducing “The Court We Need” Said 28 Sept 2026
The President's exclusion of specific outlets from the White House based on viewpoint is a violation of existing legal precedents.
Whatever other leeway the executive branch may have to restrict press access on national security grounds, hand-picking three outlets to exclude from what the Court's jurisprudence calls a "nonpublic forum" because of the President's disagreement with the putative viewpoint of their reporting is about as close to a textbook violation of the existing precedents as it comes.
251. Newsgathering, the First Amendment, and the White House Said 21 Sept 2026
A world where the President can exclude outlets based on their reporting would allow any president to create a press corps of government sycophants.
Whatever folks think about the three outlets Trump singled out here (and remember that I'm a CNN analyst), a world in which the President can categorically exclude any outlet from the White House solely because he dislikes their reporting is one in which any president can construct a press room full of sycophants and other sympathetic mouthpieces for the government's policies.
251. Newsgathering, the First Amendment, and the White House Said 21 Sept 2026
The Supreme Court's use of boilerplate language in stays means the ruling is frozen until the Court acts conclusively on the full appeal.
But despite variations in their text, they all basically mean the same thing: the ruling at issue is frozen (i.e., it cannot be enforced) until and unless the U.S. Supreme Court acts conclusively on the full appeal-no matter what happens in the lower courts in the interim.
249. The Language of Supreme Court Stays Said 14 Sept 2026
The Supreme Court's failure to explain its rulings is a problem.
I'm not sure how many times I need to say it before people believe I mean it, but it's always a problem when the Court doesn't explain these rulings, even (if not especially) in the rare but non-zero instances in which I think that there are good explanations for them.
249. The Language of Supreme Court Stays Said 14 Sept 2026
The briefing in the mail-in ballots case makes it clear that the application should be denied.
My own view is that the briefing has made it even more abundantly clear why that application should be denied-and that some pretty ugly things could result if it's granted.
249. The Language of Supreme Court Stays Said 14 Sept 2026
The Purcell principle should not apply when the federal government is the defendant.
there are two independent reasons why Purcell ought never to apply when the federal government is the defendant-and a third reason, for those unpersuaded by the first two, why it ought not to apply in the mail-in ballots cases specifically.
247. Should Purcell Apply to the Federal Government? Said 31 Aug 2026
Applying the Purcell principle to the federal government would leave voters without any judicial remedy for last-minute federal election interventions.
Applying Purcell to the federal government would close the doors of every courthouse, leaving voters without any remedy for even the most nefarious, malicious, or otherwise blatantly unlawful last-minute federal interventions in elections.
247. Should Purcell Apply to the Federal Government? Said 31 Aug 2026
What is a korrent?
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said. The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
Where they publish
Newsletter One First Weekly essays on the Supreme Court and its emergency docket; some bonus issues are for paid subscribers.
Link verified 24 Oct 2026.
x.com @steve_vladeck His X account.
Link verified 24 Oct 2026.
Bluesky @stevevladeck.bsky.social Posts on Supreme Court rulings and legal news.
Link verified 24 Oct 2026.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter, especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked article and a belief on korrents.com are left in their original language.