Unanimous Supreme Court Says Internet Service Provider Not Liable for Internet Users' Illegal Downloads
Plus: What George Orwell thought about Friedrich Hayek.
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.
American businesses and consumers absorbed nearly 90 percent of the 2025 tariffs' economic burden, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found.
Federal officials enjoy too much immunity from being sued over their misconduct.
"We see this as an important civil liberties issue," says an ACLU lawyer.
It said that if it lost in court, it would refund companies that paid unlawful tariffs. Now it says the process could take years.
Although Trump has other options for taxing imports, the justices reminded him that he needs clear congressional authorization.
And that's especially true if the tariffs are illegal.
The conservative justice’s regrettable opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump.
Plus: The U.S. could be going to war with Iran, the 2026 Winter Olympic Games, and why AI surveillance is worrying civil libertarians
The president is relying on a provision that the government's lawyers said had no "obvious application" to his goal of reducing the trade deficit.
Attorneys for the Trump administration even admitted that Section 122 can't be applied to address trade deficits. Trump is now trying to do that anyway.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County
An initial take on Learning Resources v. Trump.
The president neither understands nor appreciates the vital role of judicial independence in upholding the rule of law.
President Trump will undoubtedly keep trying to impose protectionism, but his options are limited.
It wasn't the Court's opinion that is an "embarrassment."
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