@stevevladeck
@ksvesq.bsky.social’s husband; father of daughters; professor @georgetownlaw.bsky.social; #SCOTUS nerd @CNN.com Bio: www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck "One First" Supreme Court newsletter: stevevladeck.com Book: tinyurl.com/shadowdocketpb
The "adequate and independent state grounds" doctrine is a 150-year-old interpretation of the statute authorizing #SCOTUS review of state courts under which the Supreme Court *can't* review a state-court ruling that rests on a state law basis that's both conclusive and regularly/neutrally applied:
A savvy reader points out that, even under Alito's distortion of the facts, #SCOTUS *still* would've lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay in Malliotakis—because the New York Court of Appeals ruling Alito treated as the "final" state court decision rested on an "adequate and independent state ground."
Monday night’s #SCOTUS ruling in the Malliotakis cases necessarily expands the Court’s ability to grant emergency relief in cases coming from *state* courts.
As today’s bonus “One First” explains, that’s both a really big deal and one that’s based on a deeply disingenuous portrayal of the facts:
Monday night’s #SCOTUS ruling in the Malliotakis cases necessarily expands the Court’s ability to grant emergency relief in cases coming from *state* courts.
As today’s bonus “One First” explains, that’s both a really big deal and one that’s based on a deeply disingenuous portrayal of the facts:
Second (and *last*) ruling from #SCOTUS today is Galette v. N.J. Transit Corp.
For a unanimous Court, Justice Sotomayor holds that New Jersey Transit is *not* an arm of the state, and thus not entitled to New Jersey's sovereign immunity:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
First (but *not* last) ruling from #SCOTUS is in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi.
For a unanimous Court, Justice Jackson holds that the "substantial evidence" standard applies to federal court review of certain decisions by immigration "judges":
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25p...
"One box" of #SCOTUS decisions today = 1-2 rulings coming up at 10 ET.
Screenshot of excerpt from opinion that reads: "Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial court’s order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the State’s intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial court’s order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants’ motions for a stay."
![With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls
within that category.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:nwnlnixtjh3qhkwpz2uy5uwv/bafkreibhhdcymq4dbg2pzqxsntooytqznjfgrztweju4jb5kdbqpsy6okq@jpeg)
With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls within that category.
1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings.
I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:
Yes -- this is a nuance I omitted from the thread. "Appealing" to the Court of Appeals would have required one additional step, but that step meant there was still a pathway to further review in the state courts that the parties didn't pursue.
Third, what do we make of the fact that the Supreme Court did not wait for the New York Court of Appeals to issue a ruling? Well, let's talk about A.A.R.P. v. Trump again. As readers will recall, the Supreme Court found that the district court's failure to rule on emergency motion in the span of a few hours was a constructive denial, and then the Supreme Court felt compelled to intervene before the Fifth Circuit had even issued a ruling. (As it turns out, the Fifth Circuit ruled a few moments after the Supreme Court did, and the Supreme Court almost certainly knew that ruling was coming, but the Chief Justice never sweats the details.) All of this happened in the span of 24 hours. Perhaps some may say a different standard should apply where alleged gang members, who were undoubtedly removable under other authorities, were at risk of being removed. I would reply that the clearly established rights of residents of Staten Island to be represented under constitutional maps is of a greater importance than those of purported alien enemies trying to fight removal.
"Some may say a different standard should apply where alleged gang members, who were undoubtedly removable under other authorities, were at risk of being removed."
No, Josh. I'd say a different standard applies to #SCOTUS's jurisdiction over state courts vs. lower federal courts—because it's true.
Excellent Thread by @stevevladeck.bsky.social. Not “hyper-technical.” It goes to the heart of why this Court has forfeited the trust of the parts of the profession who know and care about how litigation is supposed to work.
9/9: This may seem hypertechnical, but it underscores the broader point I made in "One First" about *both* of the Court's grants of emergency relief last night—that the Republican appointees' impatience is leading them to run over settled legal constraints to reach the merits in these cases.
/end
8/9: But he can only make that claim by distorting the order of events, and by igoring the fact that the applicants could have gone back to the Court of Appeals after the Appellate Division's 2/19 ruling, but *chose not to.*
Thus, the ground on which Alito rested #SCOTUS's jurisdiction is bollocks.
With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls within that category.
7/9: Alito thus claims (in the next sentence) that the applicants had "nowhere else to turn" for relief besides #SCOTUS, entirely because he asserts that the Court of Appeals' 2/11 ruling transferring the case to the Appellate Division was *effectively* the final word of the state's highest court.
Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial court’s order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the State’s intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial court’s order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants’ motions for a stay.
6/9: Now come back to what Justice Alito wrote about all of this.
Read the last sentence here closely:
Alito makes it seem as if the Court of Appeals' February 11 transfer to the Appellate Division came *after* the Appellate Division had already denied a stay. But it came *eight days beforehand.*
5/9: At that point, nothing would've stopped Malliotakis and the other defendants from going back to the NY Court of Appeals and asking it for relief again, now that the intermediate court had said no.
Instead, they filed ... nothing.
That fact, alone, should have deprived #SCOTUS of jurisdiction.
4/9: Instead of waiting for the Appellate Division to rule, the defendants then went straight to #SCOTUS — filing their applications for emergency relief the very next day, i.e., February 12.
But on February 19, the Appellate Division *did* rule, and it denied the applications for stays:
3/9: In this case, after losing in the trial court, Rep. Malliotakis and the other defendants *simultaneously* sought relief from NY's highest court *and* its intermediate court, the "Appellate Division."
On February 11, the Court of Appeals said "you have to go to the Appellate Division first":
2/9: In a nutshell, and *unlike* what's true for cases that come from the lower federal courts, #SCOTUS can review state courts only once the highest state court that *could* have ruled on the issue *did* rule on the issue.
Here, that's New York's highest court, i.e., the "Court of Appeals."
Screenshot of excerpt from opinion that reads: "Despite this, the New York courts refused to stay the trial court’s order. After that highly questionable injunction was issued, the applicants filed appeals in both the Appellate Division (the State’s intermediate appellate court) and the Court of Appeals (its highest court) challenging the trial court’s order on federal constitutional grounds. At the same time, applicants asked both courts to stay the trial court’s order. The Appellate Division refused to issue a stay, and by order issued on February 11, the Court of Appeals sent the appeal filed in that court to the Appellate Division and dismissed applicants’ motions for a stay."
With nowhere else to turn, the applicants asked us to issue a stay, and we have jurisdiction to entertain their application. Title 28 U. S. C. §1257(a) gives us jurisdiction to review “[f]inal judgments or decrees” that are rendered by a State’s highest court and adjudicate federal constitutional claims, and the Court of Appeals’ February 11 order falls within that category.
1/9: In the New York redistricting case, Justice Alito's justification for why #SCOTUS even had *jurisdiction* to issue a stay is based upon a remarkably misleading portrayal of the state court proceedings.
I realize this is technical, but I wanted to write a short thread to explain the shadiness:
I wrote last night about #SCOTUS's grants of emergency relief in the California transgender student and New York redistricting cases, and how the only thing uniting them (beyond the fact that they were issued simultaneously) is the Republican appointees' wholly unprincipled—and selective—impatience:
I'm really looking forward to the Court's defenders making a big deal out of the fact that there's a majority opinion (and that Barrett's concurrence purports to explain why there's a majority opinion) while completely ignoring the per curiam's refusal to actually defend (any of) its conclusions...
Thanks! Fixed.
I cannot state with enough emphasis how refreshing it is to see someone of Steve’s intelligence and stature openly stating the obvious. The reward for being right though, is an absolutely shitty reality.
Exactly right: “We’re long past the point at which there are neutral legal principles that can be deployed to persuasively reconcile all of the Court’s behavior … It makes the Court at least look like what so many regularly accuse it of being: a font of partisan political power, and not much more.”
As I explain via the latest “One First,” the only theme that unites the Supreme Court’s (unrelated) grants of emergency relief Monday night in the California transgender student and New York redistricting cases is what might be called “selective judicial impatience.”
And that’s *not* a good thing:
Our displeased 10-year-old after the Supreme Court’s evening news drop interrupted our post-dinner family hearts game:
“UGHH couldn’t dad have just been, like, an architect or something?!?!?”
The applicant would re-file under Rule 22.4, and it would be referred to the full Court, which would do whatever it wants to do (but only after a pretty significant breach in the Court's internal decorum).
I wrote about this in the context of how Justice Jackson handled the SNAP case in November:
