When it comes to the protection of individual rights by the U.S. Supreme Court, some rights are more equal than others. If a government regulation infringes on freedom of speech or the right to vote, for example, the Court presumes the law to be unconstitutional and forces the government to justify its actions. But if a government regulation infringes on economic rights, the Court takes the opposite tack, presuming the law to be constitutional and therefore requiring the regulated party to shoulder the burden of proving why the law should be struck down. Senior Editor Damon Root reports on a major federal price-fixing case that highlights this troubling judicial deference to government regulation.
Plus: QAnon comes to CPAC, Virginia votes to legalize marijuana, and more...
Donald Trump on School Reopening Failures: Joe Biden and Teachers Unions Have Betrayed America's Youth
The former president's wild CPAC speech was full of misleading claims, but he made a valid point about schools.
'Everything Has Been Criminalized,' Says Neil Gorsuch as He Pushes for Stronger Fourth Amendment Protections
The justice weighs in during oral arguments in Lange v. California.
Sandy Martinez says that fine, along with another $63,500 for driveway cracks and a downed fence, violates Florida's constitution.
A nationwide ban on evictions is well outside the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, ruled U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker on Thursday.