Clarence Thomas Undermines Free Speech in Porn Site Age-Verification Case
The Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton weakens the First Amendment rights of adults everywhere.
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.
On this anniversary, I have posted two new articles related to one of the Supreme Court's most controversial decisions.
Although the appeals court said the president probably complied with the law he invoked to justify his California deployment, it emphasized that such decisions are subject to judicial review.
Plus: The Supreme Court upholds a state ban on transgender care for minors.
With the culture war blazing, not even the Supreme Court could agree on the medical facts of the case.
The government's lawyer told a 9th Circuit panel the president's deployments are "unreviewable," so he need not even pretend to comply with the statute on which he is relying.
The Court's majority avoids the larger question of whether laws targeting transgender individuals should be subject to heightened scrutiny, but Justice Barrett did not.
Twenty years after Susette Kelo lost at the Supreme Court, the land where her house once stood is still an empty lot.
Cops should not be free to forgo the modicum of care required to make sure they’re in the right place.
Perceptions of Amy Coney Barrett may have changed more than her jurisprudence or voting record.
Plus: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre on wax.
On its face, the law gives the president sweeping authority to deploy the military in response to domestic disorder.
My contribution to an interdisciplinary symposium on "Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Court, and American Constitutionalism"
An interesting tidbit from today's NYT profile of Justice Amy Coney Barrett
The Court ruled unanimously in favor of a disabled teenage girl and her family, who faced a higher bar to prove that her school discriminated against her.
Agents detonated a grenade and broke into the house, guns drawn. But while the decision is good news for Curtrina Martin and Toi Cliatt, their legal battle is far from over.
Melynda Vincent is asking the justices to decide whether it's constitutional to disarm people based on nothing more than a nonviolent criminal conviction.
The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that burning the flag is protected by the First Amendment, no matter how offensive that act may be.
But now his case against the government can move forward.
Plus: The glorious return of drive-in movie season.
Professor Joel Alicea on how to understand what may be the most important jurisprudential divisions on the Supreme Court.
Michael Mendenhall wants the Supreme Court to reconsider a precedent that allows home invasions based on nothing but hearsay.
The right to a civil jury trial is far more deeply rooted in American history and tradition than is the right to own guns, which the Supreme Court was right to incorporate.
The Trump Administration returned the illegally deported migrant from imprisonment in El Salvador after repeatedly claiming they could not do so.
Vicki Baker's legal odyssey is finally coming to an end.
The court ruled on Thursday that a heterosexual woman shouldn't have to clear a higher bar than a gay colleague to sue for discrimination.
Unanimous rulings on discrimination, guns, and religion once again challenge the common media narrative that the Court is hopelessly polarized.
Without such intervention, he warns, the government "could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action."
Plus: A love letter to the heavy metal band Slayer.
The MAGA loyalty that Trump demands is anathema to everything that originalism is supposed to be about.
Claims that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is at the center for the Court are not supported by the data. The truth is more complicated.
A reminder that the Executive Branch retains substantial discretionary authority over immigration policy and will prevail in court when that authority is properly exercised.
The case involved a fully permitted railroad track in Utah that has yet to break ground because of environmental lawsuits.
Some additional thoughts on today's Supreme Court decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.
Environmental Impact Statements do not have to consider upstream and downstream effects.
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