Justice Alito's after-the-fact opinion dissenting from the Court's early-Saturday-morning Alien Enemy Act ruling rests on a revealing array of misrepresentations, misstatements, and non-sequiturs.
I know I just keep offering thanks in the comments, but here I go again. Thanks especially for the precision in addressing the dissent's points. I know that takes a lot of time, effort, thought, etc., but I think it's quite important in the current scenario.
I concur. 😁 I'm not an attorney, just someone who likes to geek out on understanding the nitty gritty of the Court's arguments and decisions. I appreciate Vladeck methodically letting the air out of all of Alito's tires. That big old windbag of pompous condescension tries to ride around on nothing but hot air all too often.
"the DOJ lawyer did not say what Alito said he said."
Are there no consequences when a justice bases their opinion on something that is obviously wrong, that is blatantly false? Why don't more folks ridicule this BS? This was such an absurd misreading of what was said it was more like failing at getting one of those grade school gotcha joke. It was so bad that it makes you wonder if someone with such poor reading skills should be allowed at a carpenters bench much less on any judges bench..
I was going to ask this same question. When it's obvious now, that our Judicial Branch lies, an average of 20 lies per day from the Executive Banch by the POTUS alone, and a legislative Branch with the majority of Republicans that have lied, the elections being a major crime. IMHO, coupled with the amount of past lies per administration, that have caused millions to die, and cost trillions of dollars in two unjustified wars, it's actually a miracle that we've ever been a "beacon of hope" to any Country, let alone garner any respect from our own. My proposal for a fix? Schools will be used for reading, writing, and math for half the school day and history for the other half of the day. For all 12 years. And then, after the first 12 years, we may have a portion of the populace that understands history.
I've a saying I repeat often. The only progress we humans have actually accomplished since our beginnings is our ability to live longer lives all else is simply air-conditioning.
You think Alito had a problem with Stephen Miller stating in the oval that SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in favor of teh Administration? (Methinks thou doth protest too little.)
"There are no consequences" is the critically important part of your frustrated question: "why don't more folks ridicule this BS?." How many people should ridicule these ridiculous people, and what would be the result? Setting aside that these observations are recorded in retrospect, since you very rightly point out that "there are no [available] consequences," it's just spitting into the wind to complain. Look at all the criticism of Thomas, who tells us to go fuck ourselves, and moves on to his next misadventure. Nothing can be done. It's highly unlikely Roberts would attempt to do anything, but he has no power when justices invent their arguments, either. "Sam, it would be cleaner and more powerful if you didn't misstate things." "Go fuck yourself, John." "Sorry to bother you, Sam. It was just a diplomatic suggestion." "Yeah, well go fuck yourself anyway."
I think it would help us non-lawyers to have a Thursday morning edition sometime covering what is and is not established -- by precedent or in statutes -- about what constitutes adequate notice and adequate opportunity to bring a habeas challenge. Thank you, Prof. Vladeck, for your outstanding service to the public.
I am generally determined against arguing for bad faith in the justices (not that I will argue against everyone who will do so; I just don't want to). But man, trying to argue that intervening for the people is invalid because of speed and lack of hearing while giving the government multiply admin stays with the same lack of hearing from the other side does not suggest good faith. Given the lack of effect a two-person dissent has, I don't know what the bad faith explanation would be (if they were outright paid to rule for Trump that wouldn't make a difference here; they could just note that they dissent and move on).
It isn't good, in any case. Thanks for walking throught it. I needed a primer to get me through the inevitable GOP-sympathetic arguments that the dissent is a paeon to judicial wisdom and accuracy.
Mr Vladeck, I very much appreciate your wonderful perspective and expertise, even though I'm a medical doctor, and most of it is not familiar enough to me to be "in my wheelhouse." But I mostly don't fail to understand your points.
Why did Alito file at 11pm the night before Easter? The dissent had no practical effect and could have been filed at any time. Did Alito know or fear that Trump was going to send those people to prison in defiance of the Court on Easter? His last sentence scolds his colleagues for telling everyone that they don't trust Trump, but it also reads as a warning to Trump that he won't even have Alito and Thomas if he does not provide due process before deportation.
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read an article that is both extremely informative and unbiased as is possible. The amount of over dramatic "news" circulating is enough to push any sane individual into a coma or simply not caring about the truth anymore, sadly. And unfortunately, we have enough of the later already.
I enjoyed Mark Joseph Stern's characterization of Alito's dissent as "characteristically whiny and aggrieved", but I appreciate your detailed, bullet-by-bullet analysis showing the serious flaws in Alito's contrived 'reasoning.' I agree that bullet #6 was the most worrisome - the juxtaposition of seeing the video (of the ICE motorcade passing the airport's exit and looping back to the Bluebonnet facility) against Alito's misrepresentation about no deportations being planned for Friday/Saturday was as visceral a proof the majority's order blocking new deportations was absolutely appropriate and essential. Thanks again, Prof. Vladeck, for explaining why it was also legally sound.
Thank you for this thorough ripping apart of Alito's dissent. Some MAGAT pundit or politician started calling for ignoring the court for flouting the Constitution. My response is: you must be referring to the dissent penned by the man who overturned donkey's years of constitutional law by citing the words of a witch hunter from years before the US was in existence to provide a religious reason for his ruling. THAT Constitutional Scholar/Justice?
If he felt this way, I’m wondering why Alito didn’t just deny the application when it first came to him. As far as I understand, he’s not obligated to refer an emergency stay application to the whole court.
There's a pretty strong norm that justices are supposed to refer applications to the full Court if there's a reasonable chance any two justices might disagree. Here, that was clearly satisfied regardless of what Justice Alito's own views were.
Thanks very much, Professor Vladeck, for the in-depth analysis.
I am by no means a Alito fan. In fairness to him, however (regarding your final paragraph under bullet 1), it seems to me that the JGG and Dept of Ed rulings are distinguishable, in that SCOTUS was voiding TROs that had been granted in those cases (which the Court said it construed—however questionably—as injunctions), while in AARP the lower courts had declined to issue TROs.
District court rulings on preliminary injunctions are immediately appealable whether they grant *or* deny them. Insofar as the basis for appealing a TRO is that the request for a TRO was tantamount to a request for a preliminary injunction, I don't see why whether it was granted or denied would (or should) bear upon whether it's appealable. In both cases, the district court has issued a ruling that one of the parties believes is producing immediate, irreparable effects. Hope that makes sense!
Thank you for this wonderful analysis of Alito’s dissent. I actually read it and though only partly understood the details it looked like it was based on technical issues Thanks for confirming. I also saw statement about no flights scheduled yes that is not what the government said. Thanks for clarifying. You make legalese somewhat understandable and are doing a great service.
I've always been grateful for your commentary, Steve. Now it's an absolute necessity. Thank you so much for all you do.
I know I just keep offering thanks in the comments, but here I go again. Thanks especially for the precision in addressing the dissent's points. I know that takes a lot of time, effort, thought, etc., but I think it's quite important in the current scenario.
I concur. 😁 I'm not an attorney, just someone who likes to geek out on understanding the nitty gritty of the Court's arguments and decisions. I appreciate Vladeck methodically letting the air out of all of Alito's tires. That big old windbag of pompous condescension tries to ride around on nothing but hot air all too often.
"the DOJ lawyer did not say what Alito said he said."
Are there no consequences when a justice bases their opinion on something that is obviously wrong, that is blatantly false? Why don't more folks ridicule this BS? This was such an absurd misreading of what was said it was more like failing at getting one of those grade school gotcha joke. It was so bad that it makes you wonder if someone with such poor reading skills should be allowed at a carpenters bench much less on any judges bench..
I was going to ask this same question. When it's obvious now, that our Judicial Branch lies, an average of 20 lies per day from the Executive Banch by the POTUS alone, and a legislative Branch with the majority of Republicans that have lied, the elections being a major crime. IMHO, coupled with the amount of past lies per administration, that have caused millions to die, and cost trillions of dollars in two unjustified wars, it's actually a miracle that we've ever been a "beacon of hope" to any Country, let alone garner any respect from our own. My proposal for a fix? Schools will be used for reading, writing, and math for half the school day and history for the other half of the day. For all 12 years. And then, after the first 12 years, we may have a portion of the populace that understands history.
I've a saying I repeat often. The only progress we humans have actually accomplished since our beginnings is our ability to live longer lives all else is simply air-conditioning.
Oops, off by a little:
"There's birth," he grumbled, "there's death, and in between there's maintenance. Tom Robbins, in "Fierce Invalids Home from Hot Climates"
There's birth and there's death, everything inbetween is just maintenance [Tom Robins in I forget which book]
You think Alito had a problem with Stephen Miller stating in the oval that SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in favor of teh Administration? (Methinks thou doth protest too little.)
"There are no consequences" is the critically important part of your frustrated question: "why don't more folks ridicule this BS?." How many people should ridicule these ridiculous people, and what would be the result? Setting aside that these observations are recorded in retrospect, since you very rightly point out that "there are no [available] consequences," it's just spitting into the wind to complain. Look at all the criticism of Thomas, who tells us to go fuck ourselves, and moves on to his next misadventure. Nothing can be done. It's highly unlikely Roberts would attempt to do anything, but he has no power when justices invent their arguments, either. "Sam, it would be cleaner and more powerful if you didn't misstate things." "Go fuck yourself, John." "Sorry to bother you, Sam. It was just a diplomatic suggestion." "Yeah, well go fuck yourself anyway."
I think you underestimate the power of ridicule, if enough of the right people would keep repeating the right kind of wit it could go a LONG way.
I think it would help us non-lawyers to have a Thursday morning edition sometime covering what is and is not established -- by precedent or in statutes -- about what constitutes adequate notice and adequate opportunity to bring a habeas challenge. Thank you, Prof. Vladeck, for your outstanding service to the public.
A+ explanation of the appellate navigational skills it took to give the Court an opportunity to step in.
I am generally determined against arguing for bad faith in the justices (not that I will argue against everyone who will do so; I just don't want to). But man, trying to argue that intervening for the people is invalid because of speed and lack of hearing while giving the government multiply admin stays with the same lack of hearing from the other side does not suggest good faith. Given the lack of effect a two-person dissent has, I don't know what the bad faith explanation would be (if they were outright paid to rule for Trump that wouldn't make a difference here; they could just note that they dissent and move on).
It isn't good, in any case. Thanks for walking throught it. I needed a primer to get me through the inevitable GOP-sympathetic arguments that the dissent is a paeon to judicial wisdom and accuracy.
Mr Vladeck, I very much appreciate your wonderful perspective and expertise, even though I'm a medical doctor, and most of it is not familiar enough to me to be "in my wheelhouse." But I mostly don't fail to understand your points.
Why did Alito file at 11pm the night before Easter? The dissent had no practical effect and could have been filed at any time. Did Alito know or fear that Trump was going to send those people to prison in defiance of the Court on Easter? His last sentence scolds his colleagues for telling everyone that they don't trust Trump, but it also reads as a warning to Trump that he won't even have Alito and Thomas if he does not provide due process before deportation.
I can't tell you how refreshing it is to read an article that is both extremely informative and unbiased as is possible. The amount of over dramatic "news" circulating is enough to push any sane individual into a coma or simply not caring about the truth anymore, sadly. And unfortunately, we have enough of the later already.
> These were two very small cracks in the Court’s glass ceiling. Hopefully, we’ll see bigger ones in our lifetimes.
*monkey's paw curls*
"Chief Justice Cannon, and may it please the court..."
I enjoyed Mark Joseph Stern's characterization of Alito's dissent as "characteristically whiny and aggrieved", but I appreciate your detailed, bullet-by-bullet analysis showing the serious flaws in Alito's contrived 'reasoning.' I agree that bullet #6 was the most worrisome - the juxtaposition of seeing the video (of the ICE motorcade passing the airport's exit and looping back to the Bluebonnet facility) against Alito's misrepresentation about no deportations being planned for Friday/Saturday was as visceral a proof the majority's order blocking new deportations was absolutely appropriate and essential. Thanks again, Prof. Vladeck, for explaining why it was also legally sound.
Thank you for this thorough ripping apart of Alito's dissent. Some MAGAT pundit or politician started calling for ignoring the court for flouting the Constitution. My response is: you must be referring to the dissent penned by the man who overturned donkey's years of constitutional law by citing the words of a witch hunter from years before the US was in existence to provide a religious reason for his ruling. THAT Constitutional Scholar/Justice?
Kinda makes one wonder about Alito's (and Thomas') agenda.
Oh, wait...
If he felt this way, I’m wondering why Alito didn’t just deny the application when it first came to him. As far as I understand, he’s not obligated to refer an emergency stay application to the whole court.
There's a pretty strong norm that justices are supposed to refer applications to the full Court if there's a reasonable chance any two justices might disagree. Here, that was clearly satisfied regardless of what Justice Alito's own views were.
Which applications to the Supreme Court can be rejected by a single justice? As a legal layman, I'm surprised that that's allowed at all.
Thanks very much, Professor Vladeck, for the in-depth analysis.
I am by no means a Alito fan. In fairness to him, however (regarding your final paragraph under bullet 1), it seems to me that the JGG and Dept of Ed rulings are distinguishable, in that SCOTUS was voiding TROs that had been granted in those cases (which the Court said it construed—however questionably—as injunctions), while in AARP the lower courts had declined to issue TROs.
I would appreciate your thoughts on that.
Hi Steve:
District court rulings on preliminary injunctions are immediately appealable whether they grant *or* deny them. Insofar as the basis for appealing a TRO is that the request for a TRO was tantamount to a request for a preliminary injunction, I don't see why whether it was granted or denied would (or should) bear upon whether it's appealable. In both cases, the district court has issued a ruling that one of the parties believes is producing immediate, irreparable effects. Hope that makes sense!
-steve
Thanks very much
Thank you for this wonderful analysis of Alito’s dissent. I actually read it and though only partly understood the details it looked like it was based on technical issues Thanks for confirming. I also saw statement about no flights scheduled yes that is not what the government said. Thanks for clarifying. You make legalese somewhat understandable and are doing a great service.