The courts inaction is not a determination that the six-week ban is constitutional, these kinds of emergency disputes are not a conclusive resolution of the merits of a case.

Steve Vladeck

The text of the Sixth Amendment literally limits its applicability to criminal prosecutions, impeachment is not a criminal prosecution.

Lt. Col. Briggs has consistently maintained his innocence in this case, but the question the government is asking the Supreme Court to decide is not what actually happened between him and DK, but the more technical legal question whether the military has the power to court-martial servicemembers for offenses that allegedly took place well over a decade ago, and in which, according to the highest court in the military, the statute of limitations had already expired.

Supreme Court oral arguments are notoriously unpredictable. by Steve Vladeck

Supreme Court oral arguments are notoriously unpredictable.

Much of the debate between the Justices in this case is over just how far they can go to rewrite a poorly worded statute in order to save it from constitutional challenge, that fight shows up in three of the Court's four decisions from Monday -- and is, in many ways, a sign of the times, as Supreme Court confronts an increasingly polarized Congress that, for various reasons, may be more likely to write vague statutes than clear ones.

Today's move to send the case back to the Oregon state courts is something of a surprise, because this case had been pitched all along as raising the broader constitutional question that the Justices ducked last year in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, by asking the state courts to reconsider their ruling in light of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the justices are, in effect, asking the Oregon courts if a similarly narrow basis is available for resolving this case -- even though the parties have framed the case as presenting a broader conflict between the constitutional rights to religious liberty and same-sex marriage.

It's not hard to imagine some justices wanting to take this case now, others wanting to deny it altogether, and today's result emerging only over time as a middle ground that they could all endorse -- at least publicly. And it's hard to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts wasn't at the heart of such a compromise.

Although Justice Thomas argues that District Court will soon have to take up the issue District Court ducked today, I think District Court's telling that none of the other conservative justices -- John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- joined John Roberts separate opinion, district Court's quite possible that Thomas's opinion is therefore less a prediction of where District Court is likely to go than an aspiration.

It's quite possible that Thomas's opinion is therefore less a prediction of where The Supreme Court is likely to go than an aspiration, at least for now, the rest of the conservatives don't seem eager to jump into this sensitive political thicket.

The real issue with potential litigation over congressional subpoenas isn't the substance, but the timing, even if the courts ultimately side with Congress in all, or even many, of these disputes, it could take a while — and with Congress getting nothing in the interim.

In the old days, the contemnor risked being arrested by the sergeant-at-arms and hauled off to the Capitol jail, because we don't do that anymore, the downside is just political, not legal.

The number of asylum seekers who will remain in potentially indefinite detention pending disposition of their cases will be almost entirely a question of DHS's detention capacity, and not whether the individual circumstances of individual cases warrant release or detention.

The anti-abortion group had tried to rely upon California's' anti-SLAPP' statute to argue that Planned Parenthood was trying to chill Planned Parenthood officials First Amendment rights rather than sue Planned Parenthood officials on legitimate grounds.

Today's dual rulings on the transgender ban allow the controversial policy to go into effect for now, but also allow the appeals to go forward in the lower courts, the government had asked the Justices to take the issue up even before the appeals courts could rule. Even though Supreme Court denied that request, the fact that Supreme Court is allowing the policy to go into effect suggests not only that it will eventually take the case on the merits, but also that five of the Justices believe the government is likely to prevail if and when Supreme Court happens.

Just last year, the justices refused to step into the middle of the debate over partisan gerrymandering, finding ways to avoid ruling on the merits of a pair of cases arising out of Wisconsin and Maryland, the question is whether anything has changed such that we should expect something different in the two new cases The Supreme Court is going to hear in March.

Today's ruling is yet another blow to the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle DACA, but The Trump administration may also only be The Trump administration.

The Supreme Court unquestionably has the authority to provide the extraordinary relief the government is seeking in these cases, the Supreme Court said, The Supreme Court tends to exercise that authority sparingly.

Judge Kavanaugh's views on campaign finance are already pretty well-known, but these emails suggest that Steve Vladeck'd go farther in striking down these regulations than Supreme Court has to date. Supreme Court's hard to imagine this not becoming a point of some contention at next week's confirmation hearing.

The court's summary rulings today in a pair of redistricting cases from North Carolina seem to drive home that the justices are not in a hurry to reconsider claims of partisan gerrymandering after sidestepping two major cases earlier this term, but that they will continue to pay close attention to claims that district lines were drawn due to race-based considerations, of course, whether Justice( Anthony) Kennedy's successor will tip the scales in favor or against these claims more categorically remains to be seen, so today's decisions are perhaps best understood as putting things into a holding pattern.

Today's decision could provide a road map to other states to follow Ohio's lead and to adopt aggressive rules for culling their voter rolls going forward, even with respect to folks who are still living in Ohio and legally eligible to vote.

Federal anti-discrimination laws were always going to be the next battleground after the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision, and in some respect, these laws are even more important, because they also apply to private parties -- such as employers.