Are We Witnessing "Appeasement"? A Reply to Steve Vladeck
A defense to Steve Vladeck's critique and a brief comment on Adrian Vermeule's related op-ed in the New York Times.
A defense to Steve Vladeck's critique and a brief comment on Adrian Vermeule's related op-ed in the New York Times.
Rushing out opinions can lock in erroneous conclusions and create problematic precedent.
The anticommandeering doctrine stands in the way of Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Years after home equity theft was ruled unconstitutional, Michigan keeps looking for ways around the ruling.
A federal court concluded the official was entitled to qualified immunity in a case that united two unlikely allies.
Local officials initially were unfazed by complaints that the constant surveillance raised serious privacy concerns.
The Supreme Court's critics are too quick to assume the Court's orders are motivated by political considerations as opposed to principle.
Environmental Protection Agency
Idaho landowners are facing ruinous fines because the Army Corps of Engineers refuses to follow the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in Sackett v. EPA.
The judgment is not surprising, since the president's reading of the 14th Amendment contradicts its text and history, plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent.
Plus: Ozzy Osbourne, RIP.
Further indication that independent agencies will not be "independent" much longer.
Trump v. CASA was important, but it is not clear district courts have gotten the message.
Plus: Did Mario Vargas Llosa write the world’s greatest political novel?
The contrast between the two cases illustrates the haphazard impact of an arbitrary, constitutionally dubious gun law.
The state just cracked down on a form of state-sanctioned robbery, where governments seized and sold homes over minor tax delinquencies—and then pocketed the profits.
In response to a Second Amendment lawsuit, the government says the restriction "serves legitimate objectives" and "only modestly burdens" the right to arms.
Judge James C. Ho recently described a troubling phenomenon on the 5th Circuit and the government abuse it enables.
Plus: Cuomo has a hard time taking no for an answer, a pro-party manifesto, Trump's about-face on Ukraine, and more...
Plus: A fond farewell to Black Sabbath.
There's a tension between Progressives' efforts to delegitimize the courts and hopes the judiciary to constrain executive power.
The prosecution, the latest example of local attempts to criminalize news reporting, is blatantly at odds with First Amendment principles.
Justice Jackson Sees Her Colleagues' Rulings As Threats to Democracy and the Rule of Law
The government’s lawyers also say that supposedly nonexistent policy is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment.
Plus: The Supreme Court declines to hear major eviction moratorium case, Maine passes zoning reform, and why tourist traps are good, actually.
“There's no such thing as a free stadium,” says J.C. Bradbury. “You can't just pull revenue out of thin air.”
The taxes on sound suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, originally enacted in 1934, were meant to be prohibitive, imposing bans in the guise of raising revenue.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
The ruling tells an interesting story about how the very body that created a cause of action for victims of federal abuse has since worked to undermine that right.
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is considering whether the president properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.
Plus: Conservatives won big overall this year at the Supreme Court.
There’s no need to fight over lessons if you’re not forced to learn in government-run battlegrounds.
Justice Kagan said "it just can't be right" that a single court judge can stop a federal policy in its tracks nationwide.
Two worthwhile commentaries on the Supreme Court's decision to curtail universal injunctions.
The Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton weakens the First Amendment rights of adults everywhere.
Democratic critics of the new program overlook the injustice of permanently disarming Americans who pose no threat to public safety.
“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” declared Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Today's Supreme Court ruling barring nationwide injunctions could empower the federal government to engage in large-scale violations of the Constitution. Exactly how bad the consequences will be depends on the extent to which other remedies can be used to forestall them.
Other than the Chief, Justice Kagan wrote the fewest opinions.
The two newest justices spar over universal injunctions.
Justice Barrett writes for the Court's majority that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable power of federal courts.
Free speech, assembly, and protest—not government action—have powered LGBTQ+ progress in America.
The Supreme Court's ruling striking down laws banning same-sex marriage was a great victory for liberty and equality. But it should have been based on better legal reasoning.
The significance of the Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
The liberal justice faults the majority for leaving deportees to “suffer violence in far-flung locales.”
Plus: A criminal justice case that managed to unite Alito and Gorsuch.
The appeals court concluded that the restriction impinges on the right to arms and is not consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Strict abortion bans do not seem to be seriously stopping abortions.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10