A Judicial Solution for Presidential Overreach and Congressional Abdication
The Supreme Court should take a page from its own history.
The Supreme Court should take a page from its own history.
The Justice Department's litigation positions are at odds with its avowed intent to protect Second Amendment rights.
Plus: It's the final day of Reason's webathon.
I wrote it (with help from others) on behalf of the Cato Institute and a group of takings and property scholars.
The justices grant certiorari before judgment in one of the two cases challenging the Trump Administration's attempt to narrow birthright citizenship via executive order.
Raich is one of the Court's worst federalism decisions, holding that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce allows it to ban possession of marijuana that never crossed state lines, and was never sold in any market.
Plus: It’s webathon time.
The Department of Justice sides with Monsanto on whether federal law preempts state-law duty-to-warn suits against pesticide manufacturers, setting up an important test of the Court's view of federal preemption.
The Supreme Court’s power to nullify legislative and executive acts is inherent in the Constitution.
The Trump administration is desperately trying to criminalize a video noting that service members have no obligation to follow unlawful orders.
The president’s reaction to a supposedly "seditious" video illustrates his tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime.
Plus: Jimmy Cliff, RIP.
Could today's summary reversal be a sign of things to come?
Now, under Johnson's leadership, the House has changed its rules to make it even harder for lawmakers to signal their opposition to Trump's tariffs.
Plus: Ken Burns’ The American Revolution is worth your time.
Remembering the legacy of a principled legal activist.
Congress justified that National Firearms Act of 1934 as a revenue measure—a rationale undermined by the repeal of taxes on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
The right to keep and bear arms occupies a curious place in American legal history.
For the justices, the question is just how much deference the president deserves.
Steven Duarte is one of several petitioners who are asking the justices to address the constitutionality of that absurdly broad gun ban.
This result is unsurprising, and was predicted by most analysts, including myself.
Brandenburg v. Ohio established the "imminent lawless action" standard. More than 50 years later, partisans keep trying to apply it selectively.
During oral argument at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer cited a letter by James Madison that completely undermines the administration’s case that its tariffs are legal.
Some observations from yesterday's argument in Learning Resources v. Trump.
Plus: Outrage at Heritage, air traffic might get throttled, and more...
The legal challengers to Trump's tariffs had a good day in court.
Justice Neil Gorsuch got Solicitor General D. John Sauer to admit one "likely" outcome, if the Supreme Court upholds Trump's tariffs.
Trade deficits are not a "national emergency," and the president's import taxes won’t reduce them.
Elsid Aliaj says the seizure violated state law and the Second Amendment.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't grant the president the power to regulate imports with tariffs. Even if it did, these tariffs would still be unconstitutional.
Learning Resources v. Trump will test both executive power and judicial fidelity.
Plus: Virginia and New Jersey governor’s races, a court ruling extending SNAP funding during the shutdown, and Trump’s tariff fight reaches the Supreme Court
The administration's legal brief reveals a critical contradiction in Trump's trade policies.
Humboldt County, California's sketchy code enforcement scheme piles ruinous fines on innocent people and sets them up to lose.
The Supreme Court will hear a case next week challenging the legality of President Donald Trump's "emergency" tariffs.
Remembering a monstrous era of American history
His administration is urging the Supreme Court to uphold a prosecution for violating a federal law that bars illegal drug users from owning firearms.
That understanding of a familiar anti-Biden slogan hinges on the political message it communicates.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in November on whether Trump's use of tariffs is constitutional.
My review of Amy Coney Barrett's Listening to the Law.
Long-ago debates about executive authority are not as distant as they might initially seem.
Will the Supreme Court grant Trump the overwhelming judicial deference he demands?
The law applies to millions of Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety, including cannabis consumers in states that have legalized marijuana.
The correct answer is: Yes, even when they are also regulations. Whether the Court agrees could determine the future of presidential power.
Even with a six-justice conservative majority, the Roberts Court has not (yet) increased the rate at which it overturns precedents.
The settlement, which followed Sylvia Gonzalez's victory at the Supreme Court, also includes remedial First Amendment training for city officials.
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