Alyssa Negvesky

congress sounds cool i wish it was real

Teacher: “Why did you think it was Sydney?”
You: “Well there was this one time when she played a prank on Steve by leaving semi-intimidating ransom notes hidden throughout his office… But that’s totally normal for kids, right? …Right?”

She would never hide behind a fictional magical creature. Sydney stands on business.

HAHAHAHAHA DID YOU THINK IT WAS HER BECAUSE OF THE RANSOM NOTES @stevevladeck.bsky.social

a man peeking out from behind a door that says i am here on it ALT: a man peeking out from behind a door that says i am here on it

Meanwhile, the shadow docket:

a man is sleeping in a bed with the words goodnight on the bottom ALT: a man is sleeping in a bed with the words goodnight on the bottom

Shhhhh… the Shadow Docket is sleeping

You guys @stevevladeck.bsky.social absolutely argued for his LIFE out here at the STC mock trial.

Tarble!!!!!

a man in a purple suit and white lace tie ALT: a man in a purple suit and white lace tie

I think this calls for acting out Hamilton from start to finish with just the 4 of you

Mock Trial 2026 - Shakespeare Theatre Company

D.C. folks: For something a bit more frivolous, I'll be arguing against Karen Dunn in the Shakespeare Theatre Company's 37th annual "Mock Trial" (N.B.: it's really a moot court) at 7:30 p.m. on February 17.

This year's scenario arises out of Othello, and it's ... a doozy.

For details and tickets:

204. Accountability After Minneapolis A short post explaining (1) why it's so hard to hold federal officers and/or the federal government liable for violating our rights; and (2) how a one-sentence statute could (and *SHOULD*) fix it.

"Just like the killing of Renée Good, Saturday morning’s shooting once again raises the question of why it is so damned difficult to hold federal officers—and the federal government itself—accountable if and when they violate our rights."

Me on the federal accountability gap—and how to close it:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SAME. The Women changed my life… but I just couldn’t get into The Nightingale. I finished it but it took ages. (Halfway done with God of the Woods now and I like it a lot so far!)

Picture of tweet announcing SCOTUSblog’s launch of a new “interim docket” blog.

Maybe this new blog can respond, in one of its first posts, to the argument that the term “interim docket” is a deliberately misleading attempt to minimize the (very permanent) doctrinal and real-world consequences of #SCOTUS’s rulings on emergency applications?

www.stevevladeck.com/p/177-the-no...

Ok now post a pic from July in Texas and tell me you regret moving

Now I’ll be waiting for Steve’s figure skating hair bun tutorial to drop on YouTube

a man and a woman sit at a table with a sign that says hon. edith h. jones on it ALT: a man and a woman sit at a table with a sign that says hon. edith h. jones on it

applicable AGAIN

can’t wait for #4

Do they allow popcorn in Dirksen? Asking for me.

My favorite made up character

two men standing next to each other with the words mmb says hold my beer ALT: two men standing next to each other with the words mmb says hold my beer

KBJ, probably: “I wonder if anyone will even notice.”
Steve:

If you haven’t subscribed yet, you should.

Sometimes there are funny stories. Sometimes there are troubling stories that make you worry about humanity. And sometimes, it’s just Steve getting roasted in the comments.

Either way, it’s never boring. 🥳

KBJ making herself crystal clear. Love to see it.

190. SNAP WTF? A very quick explainer on what (and why) Justice Jackson issued an "administrative stay" in the SNAP case late on Friday night, and on what's likely to happen next

Trying to figure out what #SCOTUS just did with #SNAP, and why Justice Jackson temporarily froze the district court's ruling?

Via "One First," me on what's going on—and why I think Jackson's move was savvy, notwithstanding the awful circumstances that forced it:

www.stevevladeck.com/p/190-snap-wtf

#5!!!!!

My husband took the bar last year and today when I got my results, tell me why my first reaction was “DANG IT HE BEAT ME BY 4 POINTS”

(yes we both passed comfortably but I’m still mad)

There's a longstanding debate over the value of law professor amicus briefs at #SCOTUS.

I'll just note that the additional briefing the Court ordered today in the Illinois National Guard case was in direct response to an amicus brief filed by ... a law professor (@martylederman.bsky.social).

Abstract This essay, prepared for the 2025 volume of The Supreme Court Review, seeks to provide a holistic account of the Supreme Court’s behavior on emergency applications relating to the Trump administration during its October 2024 Term. As it demonstrates, the justices in those cases not only flouted the traditional standards for emergency relief; they exhibited repeated and sustained disrespect for both lower courts and Congress, enabling the executive branch to act in defiance of countless statutory restrictions; of settled constitutional understandings; and even of coercive district court mandates, all with dramatic (and deleterious) real-world consequences. As the Alien Enemies Act cases illustrate, the takeaway is not that the Court always ruled for President Trump; it's that it pushed back only when its mandates were on the line. The upshot is an attempt by the Supreme Court to preserve its supremacy, as such. But such an approach, the essay concludes, is likely to be self-defeating. In the short term, it will encourage the executive branch to take ever-more-aggressive actions against both the people and the lower courts. And in the long term, it will not just further weaken Congress and the lower courts; it will further erode public confidence in the judiciary as an institution. Together, the increased power and momentum of the executive and the decreased credibility of (and respect for) the courts will make it that much harder for the Supreme Court to wield the supremacy it's protecting, even when it wants to.

New paper from me offering a holistic assessment of #SCOTUS's behavior on Trump-related emergency applications thus far:

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

TL;DR: The ultimate theme of the decisions is a majority bent on preserving *their* supremacy, as such—which is likely to only be self-defeating.

next protest: “yes queens”