When SCOTUS Did Lasting Damage to the Bill of Rights
Plus: The Alito retirement rumors keep swirling.
Plus: The Alito retirement rumors keep swirling.
Adler v. Shugerman on the Supreme Court's handling of separation of powers concerns on the "shadow docket."
The case will determine whether an unnamed plaintiff can take the hospital and its doctors to federal court.
The Court of International Trade is weighing the legality of the import taxes that the president wants to impose under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
It is often useful to consult the original source.
It was surprising that the Solicitor General did not appear to have thought much about the extent of Congress' legislative power under Section 5.
How the digital privacy rights of millions are at stake in Chatrie v. United States.
Two petitions ask the Supreme Court to uphold the remedy required by the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause promises "just compensation" when private property is taken for public use. But some courts have ruled that it does not always apply when police are involved.
The Administration's constitutional arguments are unconvincing, but rejecting them is not necessary to decide United States v. Barbara
Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar.
"No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded when he enjoined the project.
Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden asked the Supreme Court to abolish nationwide injunctions, which allow federal judges to stop a federal policy from going into effect.
There are far too few checks left on executive power.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara.
There was little rhyme or reason to the president's "emergency" tariffs, which fluctuated wildly depending on his mood.
Understanding the stakes in Trump v. Barbara.
The case could give the Court a chance to clarify what a "closely regulated" business is and what constitutional protections it enjoys.
Plus: What George Orwell thought about Friedrich Hayek.
Despite its rejection of the Biden administration's interference, the Trump administration is still asserting authority over online speech.
The president and his new DHS secretary are enraged by jurists and legislators who refuse to toe the party line.
The justice dissented from the Supreme Court's denial of a petition from a Texas journalist who was charged with felonies for practicing journalism.
What’s at stake in Watson v. Republican National Committee.
But for a fraudulent and misleading warrant affidavit, Taylor would not have been killed during a fruitless late-night drug raid.
The president says federal courts should not make decisions based on partisan considerations unless it benefits him.
The Republican stalwart thought he could wield more power from the Senate than he ever could from the Supreme Court.
Plus: Brian Doherty, RIP.
"Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country," according to a 1945 Supreme Court ruling.
The FCC chairman's reasoning is faulty.
The article explains how all the standard arguments for denying birthright ctizenship to children of undocumented immigrants are at odds with the main purpose of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
More than eight decades ago, the Supreme Court invented a vague First Amendment exception that would-be censors continue to invoke.
What happens if both political parties come to distrust the Court’s judgment?
The ban, which targets guns based on criteria that make little sense, seems vulnerable to a challenge under the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.
Mark Chenoweth discusses the SEC’s gag rule, the power of the administrative state, and the legal battle over whether regulators can silence their critics.
The president’s invocation of Section 122 conflates a trade deficit with a balance-of-payments deficit.
The judiciary is largely absent from the long-running constitutional debate over undeclared foreign wars.
A Federalist Society forum on the first big case of OT 2026.
Technological innovations allow the authorities to see who has visited whole geographic areas.
The lawsuit, filed by attorneys general and governors from 24 states, claims that Trump is once again trying "to usurp the taxing power that the Constitution vests in Congress."
Even if the refunds are made, business owners say they won't cover all the additional costs created by Trump's chaotic trade policies.
Plus: An unsettling comparison between the Iran War and “Lyndon Johnson going into Vietnam.”
A Supreme Court case illustrates the potential for trans-partisan alliances between critics of gun control and critics of the war on drugs.
Alexander Ledvina was convicted of violating a federal law at the center of a Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court is considering.
Most of the justices seemed unsatisfied by the Trump administration's argument that the law is constitutional as applied to a Texas marijuana user.
The president's wildly inaccurate ideological labels are no more meaningful than his other ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with him.
Professor Michael Ramsey revisits the original public meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.
A discussion of the [shadow/interim/emergency/other] docket with Professor Kate Shaw.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks