The Court's 5-4 Friday afternoon ruling is unquestionably a win for the Trump administration. How *big* a win will depend a lot upon what happens next.
This is the usual pettifogging from this rat court. Trump is burning down the country and they pretend it's just fine. Then we're all supposed to agree it's just fine and the rule of law is still in place.
It isn't fine, and it's not normal. Watching this kayfabe is hideous.
When you can make a valid criticism of the Supreme Court using a term normally reserved for performative wrestling, you know things have gotten very bad indeed.
America thinks we are so smart. Sadly we are one of the dumbest “advanced” (whatever the F* that is) countries in the world. Just like our health care, costs a lot, gives you nothing in return. Now, thanks to the orange turd, all of that will get more laughable. The sad thing is the dumbest, unhealthiest people on our continent put us in this situation. GET OUT AND PROTEST TOMORROW!
By the ""dumbest", you must mean the Heritage Foundation, GOP, Trump. et al. They are the one who got us into this mess plus Jill Stein, who ran on the Green Party's ticket. Trump won by a tiny margin of 1.5%. 68% of elegibile voters who voted (36% of registered voters did not vote), 68% of eligible voters who voted, did NOT vote for Trump. Jill Stein ran on the Green Party ticket and the votes she garnered would have gone to Harris had she not run. Stein's family implored her not to run for fear of what happened, would happen. These are official statics.
Yes, I ignorantly mean all that. Uncle Thomas and his vanilla ice cream queen make me want to vomit. I hope they roll over in their bought and paid for Winnebago in the Walmart parking lot. I am an idiot but I haven’t even been as stupid as they are and the word judge will never be near my f*ing name.
Going to the protest/demonstration tomorrow. Taking my paranoid old dog hoping they won’t arrest me. Got several standbys in case they do so the old dog can be taken care of. Any advice?
Appreciate the precision here—especially the distinction between a procedural win and a substantive one. It’s easy to conflate a stay with a definitive ruling, but as you point out, the real questions about venue, sovereign immunity, and First Amendment retaliation are still very much alive.
What concerns me most is the signal being sent: that procedural hurdles can delay or deny relief even when unlawful conduct is likely. If courts continue defaulting to technical jurisdictional arguments in the face of real-world harm—like schools losing vital funding for what appears to be ideological reasons—we risk enshrining a playbook for executive overreach: act fast, trigger procedural ambiguity, and let the clock do the rest.
The USAID case seems to be misunderstood. The court's order explicitly says, "The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow" the district court order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. It goes on to note the restrictive time constraints the district court placed on the government to disburse the withheld moneys, which was the only issue remaining for the court. The administrative order by the chief justice eliminated that time deadline. The matter was returned to the district court to "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines."
Given the Court's framing of the issues, the government received all the relief it requested plus directions to the district court to be more sympathetic to the government's position on its limitations on paying out moneys. The district court received no support for its position or orders, and its initial order is still subject to challenge.
Justice Alito's opinion, joined by three other justices, sets out what those challenges can be. Although labelled a "dissent," that would only be true if the Court were considering the initial district court order, which the majority states the government "does not challenge." Justice Alito's opinion either should have been a concurring opinion or a statement concerning the Court's order.
With this understanding of the USAID case, Justice Barrett's vote is consistent in that case and the education grant case. She addresses what the parties request - not additional matters that can be further developed.
A few things I am hoping your Monday post explains:
Timing—it seems crazy to stay a TRO with only one business day remaining before expiration and with Preliminary Injunction order almost certainly on the way. I gather the reason may be that the majority wanted to preempt that PI order. That strikes me as an awfully non-collegial way to run a justice system. Is this standard procedure or was it extraordinary?
Current Posture—the opinion says that the district court orders are stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the 1st circuit. Does this mean the case now goes back to the circuit court? I don’t understand what they still have to decide—they already assumed jurisdiction and still found relief for defendants was not merited, and there doesn’t seem to be a way for the circuit court to gather any additional information. Is the referenced appeal one that has already been requested, or the eventual appeal that is merely expected? Do we expect the case to now proceed in district court on the merits? Or on the request for a preliminary injunction? And what happens to the information gathered in the district court since March 10?
Can there be another request for a PI, or is that foreclosed?
Thanks very much for your very illuminating commentary on all of these cases.
Steve, your coverage continues to be the lighthouse in this legal storm. This ruling is a clear procedural win for the Trump administration—but, as you laid out so well, the substance of the matter is still very much in play.
What’s especially sharp in your take is the nuance around where these cases get heard. The Court of Federal Claims vs. district court tension isn’t just technical—it shapes the momentum of future accountability. Jackson’s dissent hits that chord too: jurisdiction is not just a gatekeeping formality; it determines whether aggrieved parties can get timely and meaningful relief.
I appreciate this clarification. As I understand it, this case involves cancelling teacher training grants because the (some?) recipients had DEI programs. At least there is a connection between what the grants might be used for ("promoting DEI") and the cancellation--as opposed to stopping a grant to a med school because the university as a whole "allowed" "antisemitic demonstrations" with no link between the purpose of the grant and any of the demonstrations.
I remain puzzled why "DEI" as a blanket term is illegal. Yeah, I get the "can't discriminate against white males" blather. But if the program just involves looking outside the usual recruitment boundaries and the applicants from ALL OVER are judged on their merits, where is the illegalilty?
The point is not that question per se. The point is whether it is the government's burden to show for EACH grant cancelled that something actually illegal was in the DEI plan. Trump's approach to all his firings and cancellations is kinda like, I dunno, blasting an entire apartment building to the ground because there MIGHT be a terrorist living in it.
Who decides when the vote will be called on a given case, specifically an emergency application, and when the decision will be published? I ask because of Kagan's dissent here and the long periods taken to produce and publish opinions (e.g. re presidential immunity) in the past. Thank you.
I will eagerly await Monday’s deeper dive. The claim that the TRO has many of the hallmarks of a PI strikes me as incredibly thin, with reference only to cases that appear easily distinguishable, and the failure to specify these hallmarks—which would have required only another sentence or two on this key point—seems a tremendous cop out.
I haven’t read your book, but I expect this case has “many of the hallmarks” of one that would merit discussion there, including that it purports to lay out new rules for jurisdiction over TROs without clearly articulating what those rules are.
Thanks for the interpretations.
A "Hands off" demonstrations will be near you!
💥💥💥 Democracy is NOT a spectator sport. 🧨🧨🧨
🙋♂️🙋♀️🙋♂️ Gigantic nationwide demonstration! 🙋♂️🙋♀️🙋♂️
Saturday April 5 National “Hands Off” Day of Action
on the National Mall and 657 local demonstrations
Click this link to find a “Hands Off” demonstration near you.
https://handsoff2025.com/
This is the usual pettifogging from this rat court. Trump is burning down the country and they pretend it's just fine. Then we're all supposed to agree it's just fine and the rule of law is still in place.
It isn't fine, and it's not normal. Watching this kayfabe is hideous.
When you can make a valid criticism of the Supreme Court using a term normally reserved for performative wrestling, you know things have gotten very bad indeed.
America thinks we are so smart. Sadly we are one of the dumbest “advanced” (whatever the F* that is) countries in the world. Just like our health care, costs a lot, gives you nothing in return. Now, thanks to the orange turd, all of that will get more laughable. The sad thing is the dumbest, unhealthiest people on our continent put us in this situation. GET OUT AND PROTEST TOMORROW!
By the ""dumbest", you must mean the Heritage Foundation, GOP, Trump. et al. They are the one who got us into this mess plus Jill Stein, who ran on the Green Party's ticket. Trump won by a tiny margin of 1.5%. 68% of elegibile voters who voted (36% of registered voters did not vote), 68% of eligible voters who voted, did NOT vote for Trump. Jill Stein ran on the Green Party ticket and the votes she garnered would have gone to Harris had she not run. Stein's family implored her not to run for fear of what happened, would happen. These are official statics.
Yes, I ignorantly mean all that. Uncle Thomas and his vanilla ice cream queen make me want to vomit. I hope they roll over in their bought and paid for Winnebago in the Walmart parking lot. I am an idiot but I haven’t even been as stupid as they are and the word judge will never be near my f*ing name.
Going to the protest/demonstration tomorrow. Taking my paranoid old dog hoping they won’t arrest me. Got several standbys in case they do so the old dog can be taken care of. Any advice?
Be careful. ICE is taking people in custody on any pretext without caring if they are citizens or not, especially Latinos.
Thank you for clarifying today's ruling.
Appreciate the precision here—especially the distinction between a procedural win and a substantive one. It’s easy to conflate a stay with a definitive ruling, but as you point out, the real questions about venue, sovereign immunity, and First Amendment retaliation are still very much alive.
What concerns me most is the signal being sent: that procedural hurdles can delay or deny relief even when unlawful conduct is likely. If courts continue defaulting to technical jurisdictional arguments in the face of real-world harm—like schools losing vital funding for what appears to be ideological reasons—we risk enshrining a playbook for executive overreach: act fast, trigger procedural ambiguity, and let the clock do the rest.
The USAID case seems to be misunderstood. The court's order explicitly says, "The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow" the district court order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. It goes on to note the restrictive time constraints the district court placed on the government to disburse the withheld moneys, which was the only issue remaining for the court. The administrative order by the chief justice eliminated that time deadline. The matter was returned to the district court to "clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines."
Given the Court's framing of the issues, the government received all the relief it requested plus directions to the district court to be more sympathetic to the government's position on its limitations on paying out moneys. The district court received no support for its position or orders, and its initial order is still subject to challenge.
Justice Alito's opinion, joined by three other justices, sets out what those challenges can be. Although labelled a "dissent," that would only be true if the Court were considering the initial district court order, which the majority states the government "does not challenge." Justice Alito's opinion either should have been a concurring opinion or a statement concerning the Court's order.
With this understanding of the USAID case, Justice Barrett's vote is consistent in that case and the education grant case. She addresses what the parties request - not additional matters that can be further developed.
Professor Vladeck-
A few things I am hoping your Monday post explains:
Timing—it seems crazy to stay a TRO with only one business day remaining before expiration and with Preliminary Injunction order almost certainly on the way. I gather the reason may be that the majority wanted to preempt that PI order. That strikes me as an awfully non-collegial way to run a justice system. Is this standard procedure or was it extraordinary?
Current Posture—the opinion says that the district court orders are stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the 1st circuit. Does this mean the case now goes back to the circuit court? I don’t understand what they still have to decide—they already assumed jurisdiction and still found relief for defendants was not merited, and there doesn’t seem to be a way for the circuit court to gather any additional information. Is the referenced appeal one that has already been requested, or the eventual appeal that is merely expected? Do we expect the case to now proceed in district court on the merits? Or on the request for a preliminary injunction? And what happens to the information gathered in the district court since March 10?
Can there be another request for a PI, or is that foreclosed?
Thanks very much for your very illuminating commentary on all of these cases.
Steve, your coverage continues to be the lighthouse in this legal storm. This ruling is a clear procedural win for the Trump administration—but, as you laid out so well, the substance of the matter is still very much in play.
What’s especially sharp in your take is the nuance around where these cases get heard. The Court of Federal Claims vs. district court tension isn’t just technical—it shapes the momentum of future accountability. Jackson’s dissent hits that chord too: jurisdiction is not just a gatekeeping formality; it determines whether aggrieved parties can get timely and meaningful relief.
I appreciate this clarification. As I understand it, this case involves cancelling teacher training grants because the (some?) recipients had DEI programs. At least there is a connection between what the grants might be used for ("promoting DEI") and the cancellation--as opposed to stopping a grant to a med school because the university as a whole "allowed" "antisemitic demonstrations" with no link between the purpose of the grant and any of the demonstrations.
I remain puzzled why "DEI" as a blanket term is illegal. Yeah, I get the "can't discriminate against white males" blather. But if the program just involves looking outside the usual recruitment boundaries and the applicants from ALL OVER are judged on their merits, where is the illegalilty?
The point is not that question per se. The point is whether it is the government's burden to show for EACH grant cancelled that something actually illegal was in the DEI plan. Trump's approach to all his firings and cancellations is kinda like, I dunno, blasting an entire apartment building to the ground because there MIGHT be a terrorist living in it.
Who decides when the vote will be called on a given case, specifically an emergency application, and when the decision will be published? I ask because of Kagan's dissent here and the long periods taken to produce and publish opinions (e.g. re presidential immunity) in the past. Thank you.
I will eagerly await Monday’s deeper dive. The claim that the TRO has many of the hallmarks of a PI strikes me as incredibly thin, with reference only to cases that appear easily distinguishable, and the failure to specify these hallmarks—which would have required only another sentence or two on this key point—seems a tremendous cop out.
I haven’t read your book, but I expect this case has “many of the hallmarks” of one that would merit discussion there, including that it purports to lay out new rules for jurisdiction over TROs without clearly articulating what those rules are.
a helpful discussion and summary. Thanks!
Yes, thanks,Steve, for keeping us informed. Do people realize that the HBCU’s are being negatively affected here? Protesting tomorrow!