Steve Vladeck Is Right. Of Course.

Missouri is seeking to invoke #SCOTUS’s “original” jurisdiction to sue New York—asking the justices to stay both the gag order and the impending sentencing of former President Trump:https://t.co/2spTBiwTal

There’s a 0.0% chance even *this* Court goes along with this nonsense. pic.twitter.com/h07sMvmeMY

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 3, 2024

I love it when legal Twitter (the only finer legal mind on the planet is Trump’s!) tries to argue with a law professor.

There are dozens of examples of the Court denying more substantive original filings. But what do I know?https://t.co/v2ivwwyjh1

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 3, 2024

Yes, this Court does blithely set aside precedent when it suits them.  But the logic (or lack there of) behind these complaints doesn’t explain why Roberts didn’t just declare Trump immune on Supreme authority, rather than establish the Goldbergian device of a new rule of evidence all courts must comply with (after they interpret it and the Court, several terms later, has to adjudicate those interpretations).* The answer: because even the Supremes know their limitations (recall they only got 5 votes for that bit).

This case would involve directly overriding state law. Trump v U.S. examined the New York case, but declined to interfere in it directly (state sovereignty; an issue that would completely delegitimize an already shaky opinion. That reach might have kept Alito and Thomas, but certainly not ACB; and probably not Roberts, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh. I wonder if it was discussed…🤔 ?). So the odds of a majority taking it up and approving an injunction are…0.0.

Besides, they’re on vacation. This kind of thing might just piss ‘em off.

Supreme Court Rule 42.2:https://t.co/jv66bv4fao https://t.co/dBfGB0j1YX pic.twitter.com/VQQM3mHKtU

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 3, 2024

Anyway, legal Twitter is worth what you pay for it.

This website is free. https://t.co/kVG9klDLgP

— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) July 3, 2024

(Professor Vladeck is a lawyer. His field of expertise is the Federal Courts. The field of expertise of legal Twitter is largely outrage and ignorance.)

*There are rules of evidence that apply to state and federal courts, based on the 14th, 4th, and 5th Amendments. This is the first I know of one based on a doctrine invented by the Court and not even implied in a specific part of the constitution (separation of powers is a derived legal doctrine, not, as the Christian Nationalists love to say, a phrase found in the constitution).  If there is another, I’m sure Professor Vladeck would know.