John Oliver Has a Bone to Pick With ‘Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde
- John Oliver expressed a long-standing grievance regarding the 2003 film Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde during the May 10, 2026, episode of Last Week Tonight.
- While the host addressed his issues with the movie, the primary segment of the program focused on the operations of the United States Supreme Court, specifically the use...
- Oliver explained that the Court has repeatedly intervened in ongoing cases to allow certain actions to proceed while the legal process continues.
John Oliver expressed a long-standing grievance regarding the 2003 film Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde during the May 10, 2026, episode of Last Week Tonight.
While the host addressed his issues with the movie, the primary segment of the program focused on the operations of the United States Supreme Court, specifically the use of shadow dockets, according to reporting from The Hollywood Reporter.
Oliver explained that the Court has repeatedly intervened in ongoing cases to allow certain actions to proceed while the legal process continues. He specifically noted that the Court has jumped into cases to permit Donald Trump to pursue certain actions while those matters were still working through the court system.
To illustrate the nature of the shadow docket, Oliver used a sports analogy to describe the Court’s behavior.
“It’s basically a football referee saying, ‘Pending a final ruling on the legality of the quarterback having a gun, I’m just gonna stand back and see where he’s going with this.’” John Oliver
Oliver contrasted the shadow docket with the merits docket to explain how the Supreme Court typically decides cases. Using a clip from CNN, the program outlined the standard judicial trajectory, which begins in a district court before being appealed to a circuit court.
Following the circuit court stage, a petition is made for the case to be heard by Supreme Court justices. The standard merits process involves the justices writing briefs, hearing arguments, asking questions, and meeting to discuss the case before casting a vote. This process concludes with the justices writing detailed opinions and dissents based on their votes.
