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.
Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Thomas Massie, Ron Wyden Join Forces To Unplug the President's 'Internet Kill Switch'
Under the broad terms of a 1934 federal law, the president has the authority to seize emergency control of almost any electronic device in the country.
Amy Coney Barrett Thinks the Second Amendment Prohibits Blanket Bans on Gun Possession by People With Felony Records
The SCOTUS contender's 2019 dissent will alarm gun control supporters but reassure people who want judges to take this constitutional provision as seriously as others.
Amy Coney Barrett Demolishes the Qualified Immunity Claim of a Detective Accused of Framing a Man for Murder
The case is an encouraging sign that the SCOTUS contender is not the sort of judge who bends over backward to shield cops from liability for outrageous misconduct.
Voting for Libertarian, Green, or independent candidates will not mean “throwing your vote away.”
Florida Drops Prostitution Case Against Robert Kraft, Still Pursues Charges Against the Women He Paid
Plus: DHS wants to ban some immigrants from getting four-year degrees, Louisiana cop who claimed attack admits he shot himself, and more...