Podcasts about professor stephen vladeck

In this powerful short from Episode 47 of See You in Court, Professor Stephen Vladeck challenges the narrative that federal judges are politically targeting the Trump administration. Backed by new research, Vladeck reveals that 46 rulings against Trump-era policies came from 39 judges appointed by five different presidents from both parties—across 11 federal district courts and 7 circuits. This isn't about partisan politics—it's about judicial independence and the integrity of the legal process.

In this short but revealing clip, Professor Stephen Vladeck explains how a high-stakes Supreme Court decision allowed the Biden administration to remove razor wire at the Texas border—without offering any explanation for the ruling.

In today's short clip, constitutional scholar Stephen Vladeck explains why the Supreme Court's use of unsigned, unexplained decisions—known as the “shadow docket”—is so dangerous. He shares why this judicial behavior, even when done in good faith, undermines public trust and the Court's ability to function in our constitutional system.

In this bold and urgent moment from Episode 47 of See You In Court, Professor Stephen Vladeck (Georgetown Law) warns about a growing danger: a world where the federal government can bully law firms into silence by retaliating against them for doing their jobs. He shares why this is an existential threat to our legal system—and salutes the courageous lawyers who resigned from firms that gave in to political pressure.

In this excerpt from Episode 47, Professor Stephen Vladeck reflects on justice—not as a clean or easy ideal, but as something "messy" that builds public faith in neutral and principled governance. Listen to the full conversation for deeper insights into the shadow docket, due process, and the evolving role of courts in modern America.

In this powerful clip from See You In Court Episode 47, Professor Stephen Vladeck tackles a critical—and unsettling—question: What happens if a president simply ignores a Supreme Court ruling? Professor Vladeck breaks down the legal and institutional consequences if the federal government stops following court orders, including the collapse of criminal prosecutions, civil enforcement, and basic constitutional protections. He also draws a direct line between recent violations of lower court rulings—such as the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act—and the dangers ahead. While he cautions against overstating the risk, Vladeck reminds us: fidelity to the rule of law must be a red line for voters, Congress, and every American.

In this clip from See You In Court Episode 47, Robin Frazer Clark and Professor Stephen Vladeck discuss an urgent threat to the legal profession: political retaliation against law firms. When the current administration issued executive orders revoking security clearances for firms that represented political opponents, some firms chose to fight back — filing lawsuits and securing restraining orders. Others, however, capitulated, offering pro bono work to avoid conflict. Professor Vladeck explains why these executive actions are unconstitutional under the First Amendment—and why settling sends the wrong message. The conversation highlights a growing divide between firms standing firm and those bending to political pressure. This is a critical moment for the future of the rule of law — and for the integrity of the legal profession itself.

In this compelling moment from Episode 47, Professor Stephen Vladeck discusses a rare and rapid public response from Chief Justice John Roberts following a social media post by President Trump. Could this be the first real sign of judicial pushback?

Can the U.S. government deport someone without a hearing—or even proof of identity? In this powerful clip, Professor Stephen Vladeck, constitutional law expert and author of The Shadow Docket, explains why recent actions under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act should alarm every American. If the government doesn't need to prove you're undocumented, what's stopping them from targeting anyone? Vladeck exposes the dangers of bypassing judicial review and warns of the precedent this sets—not just for immigrants, but for all citizens.

In this brief clip from Episode 47, Professor Stephen Vladeck explains why judges need to write opinions—even on urgent or procedural rulings. When they don't, it feeds the perception of partisanship and erodes public trust. Hear why transparency in the courts isn't just a legal issue—it's a democratic one.

In this short clip from Episode 47, Professor Stephen Vladeck introduces the concept of the "shadow docket"—a little-known but powerful practice the U.S. Supreme Court uses to make major legal decisions without transparency. Find out why these rulings matter, and how they quietly shape the laws that affect us all.

Why is the Supreme Court making some of its most impactful decisions behind closed doors? In this episode, Robin Frazer Clark and Lester Tate welcome Professor Stephen Vladeck, author of the bestselling book The Shadow Docket, to discuss the rise of stealth rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court. Learn why unsigned and unexplained decisions—affecting everything from immigration to abortion—are becoming more common and why every American should be paying attention.

This week, Dan discusses: What would happen if Elon Musk tried to defy court orders? President Donald Trump called a federal judge's ruling "a disgrace." VP J.D. Vance said judges have no authority to limit a president's "legitimate power." Stephen Vladeck, professor of law at the Georgetown University Law Center, joins Dan. Vladeck is a nationally-syndicated expert on the federal courts, the Supreme Courts, national security law, and military justice. He is also the editor and author of the "One First" newsletter.

Amicus is coming to you with an extra episode because of the five-alarm threat to the balance of power in the wake of Monday and Tuesday's memos from the White House Office of Management and Budget freezing vast tranches of federal funding. As agencies, states, and nonprofits scramble to figure out if they can make payroll or even keep the lights on, a hugely significant legal battle is brewing over what, if any, actual restraint remains on this administration's vision of presidential power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center to understand the ramifications of a flimsy memo that threatens the very structure of government as we know it in the United States.  120. The Impoundment Crisis of 2025 - by Steve Vladeck Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amicus is coming to you with an extra episode because of the five-alarm threat to the balance of power in the wake of Monday and Tuesday's memos from the White House Office of Management and Budget freezing vast tranches of federal funding. As agencies, states, and nonprofits scramble to figure out if they can make payroll or even keep the lights on, a hugely significant legal battle is brewing over what, if any, actual restraint remains on this administration's vision of presidential power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center to understand the ramifications of a flimsy memo that threatens the very structure of government as we know it in the United States.  The Impoundment Crisis of 2025 - by Steve Vladeck Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amicus is coming to you with an extra episode because of the five-alarm threat to the balance of power in the wake of Monday and Tuesday's memos from the White House Office of Management and Budget freezing vast tranches of federal funding. As agencies, states, and nonprofits scramble to figure out if they can make payroll or even keep the lights on, a hugely significant legal battle is brewing over what, if any, actual restraint remains on this administration's vision of presidential power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck of Georgetown University Law Center to understand the ramifications of a flimsy memo that threatens the very structure of government as we know it in the United States.  The Impoundment Crisis of 2025 - by Steve Vladeck Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week the Supreme Court announced that it adopted a formal code of ethics, endorsed by all nine Justices. In this episode, Professor Daniel Epps of Washington University School of Law and Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law join Jeffrey Rosen to break down the Supreme Court ethics code and explore questions about how it will be applied and enforced.  Resources:   Supreme Court of the United States, Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct, Nov. 13, 2023  Daniel Epps and Will Baude, “Easy Win,” Divided Argument (podcast)   Steve Vladeck, “One and a Half Cheers for the Supreme Court,” One First substack, Nov. 16, 2023.  Steve Vladeck, “Opinion: The Supreme Court code of conduct misses this big thing,” CNN, Nov. 14, 2023   Steve Vladeck, “An Article III Inspector-General,” One First substack, Oct. 19, 2023.  Epps, Daniel and Trammell, Alan M., “The False Promise of Jurisdiction Stripping” (March 8, 2023). Columbia Law Review, Forthcoming.     Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.   Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

What is the Shadow Docket? Why has it become a hot topic of late? And what do Shadow Docket orders tell us about the Court and how it picks and decides issues? Professor Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas at Austin School of Law joined Robert to discuss his new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic. Professor Vladeck is the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law and is a nationally recognized expert on the federal courts, constitutional law, national security law, and military justice. Summarily is supported by BetterHelp and The Law Office of Scott N. Richardson, P.A.Thank you for listening. Please share the podcast with your friends and colleagues. Send your questions, comments, and feedback to summarilypod@gmail.com. Disclaimer: This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not an advertisement for legal services.  The information provided on this podcast is not intended to be legal advice.  You should not rely on what you hear on this podcast as legal advice. If you have a legal issue, please contact a lawyer.  The views and opinion expressed by the hosts and guests are solely those of the individuals and do not represent the views or opinions of the firms or organizations with which they are affiliated or the views or opinions of this podcast's advertisers.  This podcast is available for private, non-commercial use only.  Any editing, reproduction, or redistribution of this podcast for commercial use or monetary gain without the expressed, written consent of the podcast's creator is prohibited.

The Emergency Docket of the US Supreme Court was a rarely used way to seek the intervention of the Court. But during the Trump Administration and more recently the Biden Administration it has become more widely used. It is now called the Shadow Docket. Professor Vladeck walks us through his book explaining the implications. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/james-herlihy/message

Professor Stephen Vladeck, author of the New York Times bestselling book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, discusses how the Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the use of the little-known - and poorly understood - "Shadow Docket" to approve unconstitutional voting processes, abortion bans, restrictive immigration policies, and expanded religious liberties. Vladeck is a CNN Supreme Court analyst and cohosts an award-winning national security law podcast.

Y'all-itics: July 9, 2023It has been another momentous term for the U.S. Supreme Court, full of bombshell decisions, from “gutting” affirmative action in college admissions, to upholding the Voting Rights Act. The high court has always made important and controversial decisions... one of the nation's premiere constitutional law experts, Professor Stephen Vladeck from the University of Texas at Austin, says what makes this court stand out is how it is conducting its business. ** The Jasons recorded this interview hours before the SCOTUS ruling that struck down President Biden's plan to forgive student loan debt and their decision in the case involving a Colorado website designer and LGBTQ rightsGUESTStephen Vladeck, University of Texas School of Law

Y'all-itics: July 9, 2023 It has been another momentous term for the U.S. Supreme Court, full of bombshell decisions, from “gutting” affirmative action in college admissions, to upholding the Voting Rights Act. The high court has always made important and controversial decisions... one of the nation's premiere constitutional law experts, Professor Stephen Vladeck from the University of Texas at Austin, says what makes this court stand out is how it is conducting its business.   ** The Jasons recorded this interview hours before the SCOTUS ruling that struck down President Biden's plan to forgive student loan debt and their decision in the case involving a Colorado website designer and LGBTQ rights GUEST Stephen Vladeck, University of Texas School of Law

A law in Texas banning abortions after six weeks. The blocking of a majority-Black congressional district in Alabama. OSHA regulations requiring vaccinations or a negative COVID test result. All of these controversial issues were decided not through the tried-and-true method of a hearing in the Supreme Court, but rather through a system called "the shadow docket," orders from the court that are (often) unsigned, inscrutable, and handed down in the middle of the night. Professor Stephen Vladeck takes us through this increasingly common phenomenon.IF YOU LOVE OUR WORK, MAKE A DONATION TO SUPPORT CIVICS 101!This episode originally dropped in May, 2022. 

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Many people are familiar with the United States Supreme Court's merit docket. Each case follows detailed and professional proceedings that include formal written and oral arguments. The justices' decisions provide lengthy arguments and citations. They are freely available to the public, press, policy-makers, law makers, judges, and scholars. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, they ruled publicly – and the press covered it extensively.  But Professor Stephen Vladeck's new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic (Basic Books, 2023), highlights that 99% of the Court's decisions are “unseen, unsigned, and almost always unexplained” on the “shadow docket.” State and federal policies – and constitutional rights – are affected by decisions that the Supreme Court makes behind closed doors. There are no opinions, no citations, and often observers have little idea which justices supported the action. The term ‘shadow docket' was coined by law professor William Baude in 2015 – and Professor Vladeck sees a recent, radical, and concerning shift in how the shadow docket has been deployed in recent years. His remarkable book traces the shadow docket's longer history to explain what is the shadow docket, where did it come from, and how the Court has radically departed from past practice to decide more and more cases out of the public eye. Professor Vladeck argues that the shadow docket has become a norm rather than an exception – and that procedural change impacts constitutional rights and public policy on a large scale including asylum eligibility, abortion, marriage equality, voting rights, and building a border wall. Professor Vladeck insists that, regardless of your individual political leanings, the Court's increasing manipulation of the shadow docket threatens our shared constitutional system, and should alarm any American who believes in the value of the Supreme Court as an independent and legitimate institution. Professor Vladeck's impressively researched (and remarkably accessible) book employs historical analysis and case studies in clear and precise prose. This is a book for scholars, students, – and anyone interested in policy and politics. The podcast ends with Professor Vladeck's suggestions for how we can all change how we talk about the Court and how Congress can make the Court more accountable. Professor Stephen Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair at the University of Texas School of Law. In addition to his extensive legal scholarship, Vladeck, has argued three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, co-hosts the National Security Law Podcast, and is editor and author of “One First,” a popular weekly Substack newsletter about the Supreme Court. John Sebastiani served as the editorial assistant for this podcast. Susan Liebell is Dirk Warren '50 Professor of Political Science at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

“Any story of the Supreme Court that doesn't include the shadow docket is a story that's looking at an increasingly skewed and incomplete portion of the Court's work," writes Professor Stephen Vladeck in his new book, "The Shadow Docket." Jeanne Hruska speaks with Professor Vladeck about his book, the Supreme Court's increasing use of the shadow docket, and what it means for the Court's legitimacy.  Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Jeanne Hruska, ACS Sr. Advisor for Communications and Strategy Guest:  Stephen Vladeck, Charles Alan Wright Chair In Federal Courts, University of Texas School of Law Link: "The Shadow Docket," by Stephen Vladeck Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2023.

On this week's Amicus Dahlia Lithwick is first joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to talk about Tennessee and the mounting evidence of Republican state houses and governors finding novel (but also depressingly old) ways to disenfranchise voters and subvert democracy. Ifill sounded the alarm about all of this in a prescient piece in Slate last month that deserves your attention. Next, Dahlia is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck on the opaque, unquestioned and largely unquestionable Supreme Court processes that undergird conservative contempt for the rule of law. Professor Vladeck's book, The Shadow Docket -  How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic is out in May. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. There was, categorically, Too Much News this week, so Dahlia turned to Mark for an exclusive conversation for our Slate Plus members about all the stuff we couldn't cram into an already jam-packed main show. They start with what's really not happening, and that is Supreme Court decisions. It's April and there has been a mere smattering of decisions from the High Court. Mark and Dahlia try to figure out what the looming logjam might mean. Next, they talk yacht etiquette, gift grift, and Justice Clarence Thomas' law breaking. And… Hey! Remember Wisconsin? It's a big deal - Mark and Dahlia delve into why. Finally, the Supreme Court may not be issuing decisions, but it did deny a petition to overturn a stay of West Virginia's extreme trans athlete ban. Mark has more on that decision and the shortcomings of a new Biden regulation about trans athletes.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's Amicus Dahlia Lithwick is first joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to talk about Tennessee and the mounting evidence of Republican state houses and governors finding novel (but also depressingly old) ways to disenfranchise voters and subvert democracy. Ifill sounded the alarm about all of this in a prescient piece in Slate last month that deserves your attention. Next, Dahlia is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck on the opaque, unquestioned and largely unquestionable Supreme Court processes that undergird conservative contempt for the rule of law. Professor Vladeck's book, The Shadow Docket -  How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic is out in May. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. There was, categorically, Too Much News this week, so Dahlia turned to Mark for an exclusive conversation for our Slate Plus members about all the stuff we couldn't cram into an already jam-packed main show. They start with what's really not happening, and that is Supreme Court decisions. It's April and there has been a mere smattering of decisions from the High Court. Mark and Dahlia try to figure out what the looming logjam might mean. Next, they talk yacht etiquette, gift grift, and Justice Clarence Thomas' law breaking. And… Hey! Remember Wisconsin? It's a big deal - Mark and Dahlia delve into why. Finally, the Supreme Court may not be issuing decisions, but it did deny a petition to overturn a stay of West Virginia's extreme trans athlete ban. Mark has more on that decision and the shortcomings of a new Biden regulation about trans athletes.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's Amicus Dahlia Lithwick is first joined by Sherrilyn Ifill, former President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to talk about Tennessee and the mounting evidence of Republican state houses and governors finding novel (but also depressingly old) ways to disenfranchise voters and subvert democracy. Ifill sounded the alarm about all of this in a prescient piece in Slate last month that deserves your attention. Next, Dahlia is joined by Professor Stephen Vladeck on the opaque, unquestioned and largely unquestionable Supreme Court processes that undergird conservative contempt for the rule of law. Professor Vladeck's book, The Shadow Docket -  How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic is out in May. In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern. There was, categorically, Too Much News this week, so Dahlia turned to Mark for an exclusive conversation for our Slate Plus members about all the stuff we couldn't cram into an already jam-packed main show. They start with what's really not happening, and that is Supreme Court decisions. It's April and there has been a mere smattering of decisions from the High Court. Mark and Dahlia try to figure out what the looming logjam might mean. Next, they talk yacht etiquette, gift grift, and Justice Clarence Thomas' law breaking. And… Hey! Remember Wisconsin? It's a big deal - Mark and Dahlia delve into why. Finally, the Supreme Court may not be issuing decisions, but it did deny a petition to overturn a stay of West Virginia's extreme trans athlete ban. Mark has more on that decision and the shortcomings of a new Biden regulation about trans athletes.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It sounds complicated, confusing, and esoteric. But if the U.S. Supreme Court legitimizes the independent state legislature theory (ISLT), many experts say it would upend hundreds of years of constitutional law and dramatically restructure the relationship between state legislatures and state Supreme Courts. The Justices have already heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper. Now we await a ruling, expected in June 2023. But we're impatient here at Y'all-itics. So, the Jasons called up our resident constitutional law expert, Professor Stephen Vladeck from the University of Texas School of Law to learn what could happen. Vladeck says it's not that democracy is hanging in the balance in the short term, but that future state legislatures could alter Presidential elections in profoundly undemocratic ways. Think “Stop the Steal” on steroids. And that's one of the reasons an odd collection of bedfellows have coalesced against the theory and filed Friend of the Court briefs, including one signed by the Chief Justices of all 50 states, something that's never happened before.GUESTStephen Vladeck, University of Texas School of Law

It sounds complicated, confusing, and esoteric. But if the U.S. Supreme Court legitimizes the independent state legislature theory (ISLT), many experts say it would upend hundreds of years of constitutional law and dramatically restructure the relationship between state legislatures and state Supreme Courts. The Justices have already heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper. Now we await a ruling, expected in June 2023. But we're impatient here at Y'all-itics. So, the Jasons called up our resident constitutional law expert, Professor Stephen Vladeck from the University of Texas School of Law to learn what could happen. Vladeck says it's not that democracy is hanging in the balance in the short term, but that future state legislatures could alter Presidential elections in profoundly undemocratic ways. Think “Stop the Steal” on steroids. And that's one of the reasons an odd collection of bedfellows have coalesced against the theory and filed Friend of the Court briefs, including one signed by the Chief Justices of all 50 states, something that's never happened before. GUEST Stephen Vladeck, University of Texas School of Law

The blocking of a majority-Black congressional district in Alabama. OSHA regulations requiring vaccinations or a negative COVID test result. A law in Texas banning abortions after six weeks. All of these controversial issues were decided not through the tried-and-true method of a hearing in the Supreme Court, but rather through a system called "the shadow docket," orders from the court that  are (often) unsigned, inscrutable, and handed down in the middle of the night. Professor Stephen Vladeck takes us through this increasingly common phenomenon.

Jeremi and Zachary, with special guest, Professor Stephen Vladeck, discuss the Shadow Docket in response to the recent controversial Texas Law that largely restricts access to Abortion. Zachary sets the scene with his poem, “The Right to Choose”. Stephen I. Vladeck holds the Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas […]