And it’s written by a Harvard Law professor who is not Adrian Vermeule💀

This article (proposing professional sanctions for lawyer-journalists who publish leaked SCOTUS material) is genuinely one of the stupidest things I’ve read in my entire adult life reason.com/volokh/2026/...

Smith and Huntsman approached Scott and grabbed his arms. Scott repeatedly pleaded “please” and “what are you doing” in a distressed voice, while Smith and Huntsman pulled him to the ground. At first, the officers held Scott’s arms at his sides while he was lying on his back. In this position, Scott screamed, struggled, and pled with the officers to leave him alone for over two minutes. The officers then eventually rolled Scott onto his stomach, repeatedly ordering Scott to “stop.” With Scott on his stomach and with his hands restrained behind his back, Huntsman put his bodyweight on Scott’s back and neck for about one to two minutes. At the same time Smith put his weight on Scott’s legs, restraining his lower body. Scott’s pleas turned increasingly incoherent and breathless as Huntsman applied his bodyweight. After handcuffing him, the officers attempted to roll Scott on his side, as he continued to incoherently cry out that he wanted to be left alone. When they rolled Scott over, his face was bloody from contact with the ground. Scott stopped yelling and thrashing around after a few minutes. Scott did not respond when Smith and Huntsman tried to wake or revive him. Shortly after, when the paramedics arrived, Scott was still unresponsive. Scott was pronounced dead after paramedics removed him from the scene. Plaintiffs’ expert found that Scott had died from restraint asphyxia.

One might hope that the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority would at least explain why it tossed out the lower court ruling against these officers, who seemingly murdered this man for no reason. Alas, we get nothing.

Here's that now-vacated ruling: cases.justia.com/federal/appe...

CERTIORARI -- SUMMARY DISPOSITION 24-1099 SMITH, KYLE, ET AL. V. SCOTT, ROCHELLE, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of Zorn v. Linton, 607 U. S. ___ (2026) (per curiam). Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.

By a 6–3 vote, and with no opinion, the Supreme Court throws out a lower court decision denying qualified immunity who killed an unarmed, mentally ill man by using "bodyweight force" to restrain him. All three liberals dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

The Supreme Court will decide whether Colorado violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause by requiring schools participating in its universal pre-K program to abide by a non-discrimination policy that Catholic schools reject. (Exceedingly ominous.) www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

Jamal is too nice to say "utter hypocrisy," but that's what this is.

Today's #SCOTUS treats *all* coercive relief against the executive branch as imposing irreparable harm on the government. For that proposition, they cite a 2014 opinion by ... Chief Justice Roberts.

Its absence here is deafening.

The @nytimes.com reporting reveals more about the dysfunction and poor leadership at the Supreme Court. These revelations underscore the brilliant observations of @mjsdc.bsky.social , @audrelawdamercy.blacksky.app , and @nanagyamfi.bsky.social at our 14th Amendment Ctr symposium last week.

It is McDuffie's supporters who are betraying the YIMBY cause by ignoring his extensive NIMBY pandering and favoring him over Janeese Lewis-George because they prefer his less-progressive policies on non-housing, non-transit issues.

OK, fine. So just say that! Don't pretend to be the YIMBY purist!

What's more, some putative YIMBY supporters of McDuffie are accusing Janeese Lewis-George's supporters of betraying the YIMBY cause, endorsing her simply because they like her broader leftist platform. That is backwards! JLG has the much stronger YIMBY platform! McDuffie is the NIMBY in this race!

What is really going on here, I fear, is that some prominent DC YIMBYs hate McDuffie's main opponent, Janeese Lewis-George, for crime-bro reasons. So they are simply pretending that McDuffie isn't pandering to the NIMBY vote while ignoring JLG's actually fantastic YIMBY platform. Really sucks!

Kenyon McDuffie is running for DC mayor as the NIMBY candidate! He wants more "community input" on development projects, more "historic districts" that freeze out new housing, fewer bake lanes, more slopulist tax breaks for current property owners. I am frustrated that putative YIMBYs support him!

Never ask Matt Yglesias about Kenyon McDuffie's proposals to freeze property taxes and create more historic districts

I am so annoyed by @mattyglesias.bsky.social's head-in-the-sand takes on the DC mayoral race that I made this stupid meme

When Trump Judges Complain About “Woke Ideology,” Everyone Knows What They Mean Eighth Circuit nominee Justin Smith says he’ll decide cases “fairly and impartially.” On LinkedIn, he still describes himself as “an attorney and strategist who fights for conservative values.”

Still thinking about Justin Smith, Trump's pick for a seat on the Eighth Circuit, writing as a 39-year-old lawyer that he had been working to "advance conservative values for 30 years"

JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Congress has long authorized federal officers and their agents to remove suits brought against them in state court to federal court. The federal officer removal statute authorizes an officer or “person acting under that officer” to remove state suits “for or relating to any act under color of such office.” 28 U. S. C. §1442(a)(1). In this case, Chevron USA Inc. invoked the statute to remove to federal court an environmental suit brought against it in Louisiana state court. Chevron argued that the suit was removable because it implicates Chevron’s crude-oil production during the Second World War, when Chevron also refined crude oil into aviation gasoline for the U. S. military. No party disputes that Chevron “act[ed] under” federal officers when it performed its refining duties. We thus decide only whether this suit, which implicates Chevron’s wartime production of crude oil, “relat[es] to” Chevron’s wartime aviation-gasoline refining for the military. We hold that it does.

No major decisions from the Supreme Court today! The one opinion is Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish—the court unanimously removes a Louisiana environmental case to federal court. (Alito recused because of his stock holdings.)
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...

Having implemented these tools, I’m going to resume posting about Supreme Court opinions in real time. I know these posts may not have the same reach, and that’s fine by me! It’s a worthy tradeoff if it means bad actors can’t exploit them to direct a torrent of abuse my way. We’ll see how it goes.

I really appreciate everybody who reached out after the unfortunate and bizarre pile-on I experienced on here a few weeks ago. Thanks especially to those of you who taught me how to limit engagement to dissuade trolls from fomenting a rage-fest in the future. I wish I knew about these tools earlier!

It's interesting how the FedSoc (& Never Trump) crowd are making a real push to defend and buttress the Supreme Court in the face of attacks from both the left and Trump. It's a cottage industry right now across podcasts, books, etc. And it's understandable they want to protect their own.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas blasts progressivism as threat to America He said that the values enshrined in the 1776 Declaration of Independence have “fallen out of favor” among Americans.

Genuinely funny that Sonia Sotomayor issued a public apology today for her mild criticism of a conservative colleague on a specific, substantive issue, and then a few hours later Clarence Thomas picked up a mic and was like ALL LIBERALS ARE AMERICA-HATING COWARDS

i can't help but think about 10 or 11 years ago when conservatives insisted that obama was uniquely anti-catholic because his administration thought that catholic-led orgs could just fill out a form if they didn't want to cover contraceptives in their health plans for employees.

To echo Chris, I really hope this is strategic because her criticism of Kavanaugh was spot-on.

Sotomayor and Jackson's criticisms just don't seem like the kind of thing they'd say if they felt there were still hope of persuading their colleagues to reach a compromise and give the Voting Rights Act a stay of execution. More of a "burn it down" attitude peeking out here.

Between this and Sotomayor's recent dig at Kavanaugh, I'm getting the sense that Callais (the Voting Rights Act case) will be an absolute disaster and the liberals have given up trying to mitigate the damage.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson slams Supreme Court’s emergency docket actions Jackson faulted her fellow justices for often forcing the public and lower-court judges to rely on “scratch-paper musings."

"Scratch-paper musings” is SUCH a good burn of the shadow docket, nobody is doing it like KBJ www.politico.com/news/2026/04...

Steve understood the assignment. Fantastic testimony, very much worth your time.

I disagree. My position is that no one in the media can be credibly opposed to cameras in the courtroom, whether or not it benefits the institution or our own outlets. It's not our job to protect the court from itself.

QUESTION PRESENTED Did the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act strip district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this Court in Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974), to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits?

The Supreme Court takes up just one new case today, Johnson v. Congress, involving veterans' benefits. www.supremecourt.gov/orders/court...

FYI: I don't expect the court to issue more opinions until, at the earliest, April 17, when the justices are next scheduled to convene!

I wonder if there was some sort of reason the Founders routed the war power through Congress rather than the whim of one person. Probably not.

There’s a stacked bench of contenders at this point but she is definitely in the top tier. As long as NC keeps its Democratic governor …

Riggs knows why NC Republicans—including her own colleagues—tried to steal her elected SCONC seat.

The Leandro case basically defined North Carolina's obligation to equitably fund schools — especially in rural districts — for 30 years. Enormous ruling here.