Latest news with #SteveVladeck
CNN
4 days ago
- Politics
- CNN
The Supreme Court mistakenly emailed orders to attorneys ahead of schedule. It's the second major technical error in a year
The Supreme Court on Friday mistakenly sent out email alerts to attorneys and others laying out which cases it would hear days before it was scheduled to do so, the latest major technical glitch to come from the high court during its busiest month of the year. The high court acknowledged that, due to an 'apparent software malfunction,' notifications about which cases would be granted or denied its review - that were not supposed to be released until Monday morning – were mistakenly distributed on Friday afternoon. Because of that, the court took the highly unusual step of releasing its regular orders list on Friday. It marks the second time within a year that the Supreme Court has had an important technical glitch during its busy month of June, when the justices are rushing to complete opinions for the term. Last year, the court posted an opinion in a major case before it was scheduled to be released and then quickly took it down. Multiple attorneys in several cases received emails alerting them to whether the court would hear arguments in their case or not. But those decisions were not made public on the court's online docket, which caused mass confusion among appellate attorneys. 'Accidents happen, and the court should be encouraged to provide more access to its rulings, like the email notification service that apparently caused today's glitch,' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. 'That said, this is the second high-profile premature release of rulings in the last year,' Vladeck said. 'Whether it's a sign that the court is juggling too many balls at once or a symptom of some other problem, it's not a great look for an institution the authority of which depends so profoundly on public confidence.' This story is breaking and will be updated.
Yahoo
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin's threat to suspend core U.S. legal right sparks outcry and alarm
Legal experts and Democrats expressed growing alarm over the weekend that Trump administration officials are openly discussing unilaterally suspending habeas corpus — a bedrock American legal right — without the approval of Congress. The writ of habeas corpus, which dates back centuries, grants anyone detained in the U.S. the right to see a judge, challenge the government's evidence against them and present a defense. But White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller downplayed its significance on Friday, suggesting that the administration could move to suspend it unilaterally. "That's an option we're actively looking at," Miller told reporters at the White House. Steve Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, described Miller's statement on Substack as 'factually and legally nuts' and called it the 'most remarkable (and remarkably scary) comments about federal courts that I think we've ever heard from a senior White House official." Other legal scholars strongly challenged Miller's assertion that the president could unilaterally suspend habeas corpus, Latin for 'that you have the body." Vladeck and three other experts said that a legal consensus has existed for decades that only Congress has the authority to suspend the right. They noted that Article 1 of the Constitution, which describes Congress's powers, states, 'the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.' Over the weekend, senior Republicans largely declined to answer questions about Miller's threat. Democrats argued that the Trump administration is using its immigration crackdown to undermine the power of the judicial branch, bypass traditional legal safeguards and dangerously increase the power of the president. 'The one power you cannot give the executive is the power to arbitrarily imprison people who oppose the regime,' Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said at a Democratic rally in Sarasota, Florida. 'Today it may be an El Salvadorian immigrant or a foreign student, but tomorrow it is you or me. The slope to despotism can be slippery and quick.' President Trump has been personally involved in discussions with the administration about potentially suspending habeas corpus, CNN reported on Saturday. He appeared to allude to the issue in a statement to reporters on April 30. 'There are ways to mitigate it and there's some very strong ways,' Trump said. 'There's one way that's been used by three very highly respected presidents, but we hope we don't have to go that route.' The White House did not respond to requests for comment from NBC News. Trump was most likely referring to Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson, who suspended habeas corpus during and after the Civil War; Theodore Roosevelt, who suspended it in two provinces in the Philippines during a 1905 rebellion there; and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who suspended it in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Supreme Court and several federal judges have recently ruled that anyone detained in the U.S. — including migrants — has the right to appear before a judge and present their defense. Trump and Miller have assailed those rulings. In his remarks on Friday, Miller referred to the jurists responsible as 'a handful of Marxist judges' carrying out 'a judicial coup.' He warned that the administration's decision to suspend habeas corpus unilaterally would depend on whether the courts 'do the right thing.' Vladeck accused Miller of threatening judges. 'It's not just the mafia-esque threat implicit in this statement,' Vladeck wrote. 'He's suggesting that the administration would (unlawfully) suspend habeas corpus if (but apparently only if) it disagrees with how courts rule in these cases.' Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, called Miller's claim that the president has the power to unilaterally suspend habeas corpus false. 'Habeas corpus can only be suspended under the Constitution in times of invasion or insurrection. None of that is happening now,' said Somin, a libertarian legal scholar and the Simon Chair of Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. 'And it can only be done by Congress, not the president acting on his own.' Somin and Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University, cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling in which conservative Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concluded that only Congress has the authority to suspend habeas corpus. O'Connor also emphasized that habeas corpus has acted as a 'critical check' on the executive branch's power to unlawfully detain individuals in the U.S. 'Only in the rarest of circumstances has Congress seen fit to suspend the writ,' O'Connor wrote, referring to habeas corpus. 'At all other times, it has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring that it does not detain individuals except in accordance with law.' Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, agreed in an opinion of his own that the power to suspend habeas corpus rests solely with Congress. He also said that the executive branch cannot unilaterally round up Americans and hold them in 'detention without charge,' even in times of rebellion. 'Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime,' Scalia wrote. 'The Executive's assertion of military exigency has not been thought sufficient to permit detention without charge.' Professor Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School, said that Trump and Miller are trying to discredit judges and maximize the power of the presidency. 'Denial of habeas corpus jurisdiction for immigrants is an attempt to do an end run around checks and balances,' Gillers said. 'It is a way to sideline the courts and retain maximum power in the executive branch." This article was originally published on
