Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

Samuel Alito's 'Appeal to Heaven' Flag Got Retconned

This is becoming ridiculous.

Robby Soave | 5.30.2024 4:45 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito stands next to Clarence Thomas and others with the American flag in the background | Jacquelyn Martin - Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom
Alito (Jacquelyn Martin - Pool via CNP / MEGA / Newscom/RSSIL/Newscom)

Samuel Alito has refused to recuse himself from upcoming cases relating to the January 6 Capitol riot. The Supreme Court associate justice told Congress earlier this week that Democrats' insistence that he does so was unreasonable, saying, "I am therefore duty bound to reject your recusal request."

Why have so many Democratic politicians and media figures decided that Alito should sit out from January 6 cases? They believe that he has proven himself to be sympathetic to former President Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election—and they cite as evidence two flags that were flown on Alito's properties.

One was an upside-down American flag, and the other was a Pine Tree flag bearing the message "an appeal to heaven." Many in the media have abruptly decided that both flags telegraph agreement with the right's pro-insurrection camp. CNN called the "Appeal to Heaven" flag a "symbol for supporters of former President Donald Trump." The New York Times noted that both flags were carried by rioters during the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. MSNBC insisted that the Pine Tree flag was not just a pro-insurrection flag but also a Christian nationalist flag and implied that Alito should recuse himself from abortion-related cases as well.

Yet the idea that either the Pine Tree flag or flying the American flag upside-down always and everywhere endorsements of Trump's election-related malfeasance is ludicrous. The American flag is commonly turned upside-down by activists representing all sorts of issues and usually represents dissatisfaction with the current state of the country. The "Appeal to Heaven" flag has equally broad usage; it originated during the Revolutionary War and quotes the philosopher John Locke in defense of rebellion against unjust authority. Protesters have borrowed it for their own purposes throughout American history. The Black Lives Matter movement was using it just a few weeks before January 6.

It is certainly true that some of the people who smashed the windows of the U.S. Capitol and feuded with police were carrying this flag, the Gadsden flag, and other icons of liberty—including the American flag itself. That does not mean these flags should be considered exclusive hallmarks of the far right. In fact, people ought to resist ceding pro-liberty iconography to the far right.

Alito says that he had nothing to do with the flags, which were put up by his wife during a dispute with one of their neighbors. It is certainly possible that Martha-Ann Alito is a supporter of the Stop the Steal movement. (Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni Thomas, was certainly sympathetic.) The flags are not compelling evidence of this, however; nor would it necessarily mean that Alito should recuse himself from such cases. Would a liberal justice be expected to recuse from a case related to gay marriage if they flew the pride flag? Or a criminal justice–related case if they had a Black Lives Matter sign on their front yard? No.

For decades, San Francisco's city hall has flown the "Appeal to Heaven" flag alongside other cherished, patriotic banners. In response to the Alito controversy, the city announced this week that it had removed the flag. This is madness. It's retconning. That picture of a pine tree is not a right-wing symbol of hate; cowards are turning it into one.

This Week on Free Media

Once again, I am joined by Amber Duke to discuss Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg's electric vehicle push, MSNBC's price confusion, Trump's interview with Tim Pool, Robert DeNiro's stunt, and more.

 

Worth Watching

I'm playing a new video game! Nintendo released a remake of Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door for the Switch. I originally played this game in college, and it's just as much fun as I remembered. The Paper Mario series combines typical Mario platforming action with RPG-esque battle strategy and a surprising amount of hilarious dialogue and sophisticated storytelling. The game is well worth acquiring if you own a Nintendo Switch.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Harvard Announces It Will Stop Releasing Political Statements

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

PoliticsSupreme CourtSamuel AlitoMAGADonald TrumpFree SpeechMedia CriticismCongress
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (72)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Zeb   12 months ago

    I find it pretty amusing that here we have a bunch of lefty democrats basically telling these justices "keep your women under control".

    1. Mickey Rat   12 months ago

      And that wives are mere appendages of their husbands who are in positions of authority.

    2. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

      Or, they suspect that the righty republicans are simply lying--and have no issue throwing their respective spouses under the proverbial bus. Tradwives would demand it.

      1. VinniUSMC (Banana Republic Day 5/30/24)   12 months ago

        Eat shit, SpamsALot

        1. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

          Great to see you go full Scato.

        2. GKAM   12 months ago

          Typical response from the Nasty Right.
          No class whatever.

      2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   12 months ago

        Or, maybe liberals just like to whine and bitch about every stupid thing under the sun. Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair.

        Idiot.

    3. GKAM   12 months ago

      I love what is happening to Trump and Putin.
      Crooked SC justices next.

  2. shadydave   12 months ago

    "Why have so many Democratic politicians and media figures decided that Alito should sit out from January 6 cases?" Gee, I have no clue.

    I saw a comedy sketch once called "Easily Solved Mysteries." This is one of those.

  3. Zeb   12 months ago

    "Insurrection" really needs scare quotes.

    1. Stuck in California   12 months ago

      So does "hate".

    2. Public Entelectual   12 months ago

      If you think a pious picture of a pine tree is an incitement to riot, what about a blue beaver attacking a palm tree with its teeth?

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/05/mistrial-declared-in-vermont-climate.html

  4. Bertram Guilfoyle   12 months ago

    If only he'd flown a Hamas flag instead.

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

      If you believe Robby, that would have meant nothing.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

        Why would anyone believe Robby?

  5. Well Adjusted Biden Guy   12 months ago

    Guilty. Poor rubes supporting a convicted criminal. Do they have any class at all? Let’s see.

    I’m fine, BTW, with them giving his rapey douchebag ass the chair.

    1. Idaho-Bob   12 months ago

      We all know what time it is now.

    2. Diarrheality   12 months ago

      So, malice before justice. Hope you like the new rules.

      1. Well Adjusted Biden Guy   12 months ago

        I kid. I don’t want Palm Beach douchebag killed. I just want him to spend as much time in prison as Michael Cohen did. Fair is fair.

        1. Diarrheality   12 months ago

          You've already established you have no integrity; the degree to which you have none is irrelevant.

        2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

          And I would like it if you spent some time dead. So go kill yourself you fucking pinko.

  6. Sarah Palin's Buttplug 2   12 months ago

    Donnie GUILTY on all counts (CNN).

    What a great country. WE can hold our most powerful accountable.

    #AMERICAisGREAT

    1. Zeb   12 months ago

      That's an interesting way to describe what happened.

      1. Mother's Lament   12 months ago

        Buttplug said the same thing in December 1933 at the Van der Lubbe trial.

        Our Georgia Klansman is a proud fascist.

    2. BigT   12 months ago

      What crime was there?

      Haha! Of course he can't tell us because there was none.

      1. Mother's Lament   12 months ago

        Buttplug knows, but he's a Nazi so of course he's going to celebrate the creation of a police state.

        1. ChemJess HorseshoeShill   12 months ago

          Hey, he was nominated by George W...

          Isn't he one of the republicans that are worse than deomocrats?

  7. Well Adjusted Biden Guy   12 months ago

    But what about Kkklinton’s emailz and Hunter’s laptop. That’s more important.

    1. InsaneTrollLogic   12 months ago

      That’s three idiotic posts in a row, Shrike.

      1. Well Adjusted Biden Guy   12 months ago

        I can’t hear you. I’m shooting off illegal fireworks and day drinking. Get back to me tomorrow around 1 in the afternoon after my hair of the dog kicks in.

        1. InsaneTrollLogic   12 months ago

          Enjoy it until November, asshole.

          1. Diarrheality   12 months ago

            I wonder if he's considered we all have to swim in the same water.

      2. JesseAz   12 months ago

        He has to catch up to sarc.

    2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

      Prosecute the, both. Why not? We’re apparently just making up the law as we go along, right faggot?

  8. BigT   12 months ago

    An insurrection is justified now.

  9. ChemJess HorseshoeShill   12 months ago

    Our Canadian legal expert has pointed out that republicans favored by the likes of GWB and Paul Ryan are worse than democrats.
    I think the progressives may be on to something with this one. Alito is a BBB, RiNO republican and worse than any democrat. This fucker is in for it when the maga realignment is complete.

    1. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

      Have you noticed nobody is responding to your trolling?

  10. Daddyhill   12 months ago

    Isn't it reasonable to wonder about how SCOTUS justices arrive at their conclusions? These people make decisions of great import and gravity, but much of their work is invisible or opaque. Their opinions are replete with words and ideas that are often barely comprehensible to the general public. Can't we be forgiven for supposing a non-zero probability that a justice's spouse, relatives, or circle of friends could influence that justice's opinions? In ways that a reasonable person would view as improper?

    1. JD Daily   12 months ago

      The opinions are written for lawyers & lawmakers; therefore, they are difficult for the public to read and understand SCOTUS opinions. Basically the opinions are no different than documents written by bio scientists for bio scientists.

      Based on Thomas's concurring opinion in Hobbs it is likely tha should a state want to follow his suggestion that Obergfell and Lawrence be challenged; since, the legal doctrine underpinning these decisions no longer is valid. Hobbs all but erased substantive due process from 14th Amendment law.

  11. Uncle Jay   12 months ago

    If I can burn a flag as a symbol of free speech, then anyone, even a SCOTUS justice can fly a flag any way they deem fit.
    Why is this so difficult to understand?

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

      If the Supreme Court has (or soon is expected to have) a case before it involving flag burning, a Supreme Court justice sending the message of burning a flag is not simply an act of free speech.

      It is still free speech, in the sense that Congress can make no law prohibiting it, but banning speech is not what we're discussing here. We're discussing whether that Supreme Court justice is legally required to recuse him or herself from that case. The standard is, does the speech (or act) indicate that the justice's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned"?

      Do you understand?

      1. JD Daily   12 months ago

        There is no law requiring a justice to recuse themselves from any case. Per Article III the Chief Justice has the power set standards of behavior for the judicial branch.

        1. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

          "28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

          (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

          Nope, there's no law...

          1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

            Goddamn you’re a stupid fuck. The governing document for the SCOTUS is the constitution. Not any law created by Congress. As the legislative branch does not regulate SCOTUS.

            Although it is completely unsurprising to any of us that you’re completely ignorant of the constitution. Which is also part of why you’re a scumbag democrat.

            1. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

              Lol, I knew that would provoke a typically polite, measured response. There is a law. I cited it, so you can read it for yourself. If you wish to argue that it is not applicable to the Supreme Court, you are, of course, free to do so.

              The Code of Ethics for federal court judges does not apply to the Supreme Court, but the statutory requirement does, as the Supreme Court itself has confirmed in its statement introducing the Supreme Court's own Code of Ethics:

              "In addition to this Code of Conduct, the Justices also comply with:
              • The Constitution of the United States, see, e.g., U.S. Const. Art.
              I, § 9, cl. 8 (foreign emoluments clause); Amdt. 5 (due process
              clause).
              • Current laws relating to judicial ethics including, but not limited
              to 28 U.S.C. §§ 455, 2109; the Ethics in Government Act, 5 U.S.C.
              §§ 13101 – 13111, 13141 – 13145; the Foreign Gifts and
              Decorations Act, 5 U.S.C. § 7342; Pub. L. 110-402, § 2(b), 122 Stat.
              4255; and the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of
              2012, Pub. L. 112-105, §§ 12, 17, 126 Stat. 303; and
              • Current Judicial Conference Regulations on: Gifts; Foreign Gifts
              and Decorations; Outside Earned Income, Honoraria, and
              Employment; and Financial Disclosure."

              https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

              By the way, I am a democrat, but I am not a Democrat. The only time I have ever voted for a Democrat was in the 2020 presidential election. And that was only because the Republicans had stupidly nominated an abominable candidate; I will obviously not vote for Trump in 2024, either. Voting for Biden goes against most of my personal interests, but unlike you, I will not get on my knees before someone like Trump. Enjoy the view!

              1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

                It’s not an ‘argument’. It’s a constitutional fact, you moronic lying Marxist.

                Case closed. Now fuck off with your bullshit.

  12. Marshal   12 months ago

    That picture of a pine tree is not a right-wing symbol of hate;

    Sometimes people slip up and accidentally reveal their true beliefs. How did "right-wing" suddenly come to intrinsically mean hate?

    1. John Rohan   12 months ago

      straw man alert

      1. mad.casual   12 months ago

        It sounds a little like he might be trying to indict Robbie with the "right-wing = hate" association. However, he does rub up against a point that I keep making: what exactly makes the 'Appeal To Heaven' flag right-wing? If Alito's wife had flown the Betsy Ross Flag or the Star-Spangled Banner flag from 1812 (with 15 stars) are those right-wing too?

        The more this gets bandied about, especially as it applies to things that pre-date the Republican Party or the Nazis or whatever your/the current/specific conception of "right-wing" is, the more the fog will lift and people see through it to the underlying animus of "I hate [thing] because [thing] is associated with [George Washington/Betsy Ross/America/Liberty/Freedom]."

  13. R Mac   12 months ago

    "becoming ridiculous"?

    Wake the fuck up Robbie.

  14. NoVaNick   12 months ago

    Fun fact: the pine tree flag was one of the Massachusetts state flags until the one with Wampanoag chief Massasoit on the blue shield became official in 1966. The official flag is now problematic because of the sword that appears above him and the Latin state motto which translates, “thus, we seek peace under liberty.” Some have proposed going back to the pine tree flag, but probably not anymore. So what are they to do?

    1. Rev Arthur L kuckland   12 months ago

      A flag with the face of Marky mark?

      1. Wizzle Bizzle   12 months ago

        Hey kid. Say "hi" to your flag for me, okay?

  15. AT   12 months ago

    Remember when the same cowards did the same thing with the OK hand gesture?

    Everything's a super secret dog whistle to these morons. It's because they can't win anything on the merits, and therefore have to invent ways to be offended. "Other Tribe likes apple juice! Apple juice is clearly white supremacy!"

    Dumb.

    1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

      We never should have stopped beating the shit out of hippies.

  16. TJJ2000   12 months ago

    There's a deeper motive here many are missing.

    Democrats want all the attention to center on instant prosecution of anyone who questions the 2020 election. If even 1/10th of the time spent hanging skeptical-witches was focused on finding truth in that election their fraud might see the light of day and turn the nation upside down.

    1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

      That’s the whole point. They’re desperate to shut down any dissent.

  17. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

    "Would a liberal justice be expected to recuse from a case related to gay marriage if they flew the pride flag? Or a criminal justice–related case if they had a Black Lives Matter sign on their front yard? No."

    Whoa, Nelly. The correct (albeit non-partisan) answer is, "yes". The duty of a Supreme Court justice is to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

    This is not optional; it is a legal requirement. The only question is one of fact: might the justice's impartiality "reasonably be questioned"? And that is an objective, "man in the street" test of what is reasonable, not whatever a particular justice thinks is reasonable.

    A justice flying a pride flag sends a signal about how they view LBG issues just as much as a justice flying a BLM flag does, or a "blue lives matter" flag, or an Israeli flag--or an Islamic State banner. Moreover, the only rational reason to fly such a flag is to send a message conveying sympathy to a particular cause.

    When the Court is faced with a case involving a particular cause, a justice conveying overt sympathy with (or against) that cause obviously calls into question that justice's impartiality. The justice may not in fact be partial, but that is not the test: the test is whether their impartiality "might reasonably be questioned".

    1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

      Who required it?

    2. AT   12 months ago

      I can't even with this.

      This is the same mindless tripe that insanely concluded that ACB couldn't possibly be a justice because *gasp* she has religious beliefs.

      Judges, all the way up to Justices, are ALLOWED to have social, political, moral, religious, cultural, and aesthetic beliefs/viewpoints/opinions! It'd be insane to think they wouldn't, or couldn't! If a judge is invited to lunch at PF Chang's and they say, "Nah, I'm not really a fan," it doesn't mean they're "partial" and therefore disqualified from any issue involving Asians, Asian cuisine, or even PF Chang as a litigant!

      That is a pig ignorant understanding of the term "conflict of interest" which would require recusal. And it's intentionally so, and the people screaming about Alito's wife's flag and demanding his recusal on that basis know it. (And if they don't, then they're too stupid to be listened to. And should be punched in the throat.)

      This has NOTHING to do with partiality, and EVERYTHING to do with a desperate attempt to slant SCOTUS in a direction they fear it might not.

      1. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

        Sorry, but the applicable law is not limited to an actual conflict of interest. Perhaps you missed the wording, "any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned"? (28 U.S.C. §§ 455)

        But you seem to be quoting a different law. Which one is that?

        Perhaps your anger has interfered with your reasoning process?

        1. AT   12 months ago

          Keyword: reasonably.

          Clearly you've never conducted or been part of a voir dire. Lots of people have lots of opinions and beliefs about things. Lots of people have experiences that form the way they view the world. Some even have prejudices that they make no effort to hide.

          None of that is the question. The question is: can they be impartial? When they have a vested interest - usually a financial or familial one - the answer is no. When it's just a common interest? The answer is yes. If you like fried chicken more than hamburgers, it doesn't mean you can't make an impartial decision in a contract or property dispute between KFC and McDonalds.

          To say that one couldn't is stupid. And you're stupid for obviously believing that to be the case. But I get it, you're trying to rationalize the conclusion you want to reach. Which is also stupid.

          Judges aren't robots. Nor are jurors. You're arguing as if they should be. As if they could be. This is not the argument of someone operating in reality and utilizing rational thought.

          Like I said - stupid.

  18. David Perry   12 months ago

    So Sotomayer needs to recuse if anything 'controversial' might come up based on her recent public comments about how she feels about recent rulings?

    Kentanji-Brown needs to recuse if a case comes up based on anthing regarding sexuality or gender, being as she can't define in any sense what a woman is. Heck, throw abortion in there too.

    Kagan needs to recuse on anything reflecting gay rights considering she considered DADT was unconstitutional and made statements as such before ever ruling on such, banning recruiters, telling students to protest, etc.

    So no, I will throw the bullshit flag on the left's sudden concern for judges, who all magically happen to have been nominated by Republican Presidents, to recuse themselves because they 'may' have an opinion on the matter. That is 100% political convenience and power-grubbing, and infinitely hypocritical, thanks.

  19. Public Entelectual   12 months ago

    As Revolutionary War Flags go, this one is pretty tame- it's copied from the first silver coin struck in New England- the Pine Tree Shilling .

    What would the lefty press have to say if she'd run up this one instead:

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/05/mistrial-declared-in-vermont-climate.html

    1. diver64   12 months ago

      What in the hell is that flag? I know that a white flag with a black beaver was NY's official flag in 1775 and ships from there flew it but whats with the palm tree and weird colors?

  20. SRG2   12 months ago

    What is it with you seppos and flags?

    1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   12 months ago

      I dunno Shrike. What is it with you and little boy’s rectums?

  21. Sequel   12 months ago

    Afterthought regarding the timing of this story...

    It was probably a total concidence that the NY Times revived this dead story on May 16, just as the Trump jury was going on a week-long vacation.

    1. ObviouslyNotSpam   12 months ago

      What does the Alito flag story have to do with Trump?

      Are you suggesting it wasn't limited to a "neighbor dispute", after all?

  22. DrZ   12 months ago

    Re: Biden's EV subsidies recalls Reagan's quote: "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."

  23. JasonT20   12 months ago

    The flag code is pretty specific that the union should only be down in extreme emergencies and need for immediate assistance. A post office with people sheltering during a hurricane that need rescue from flooding, for a non-military example. An individual with a flag pole might do the same thing and it would be understood to be that kind of emergency. Using it as a political message is not keeping with the U.S. flag code by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, the more often people use it that way, the less useful that becomes as a sign of actual emergency.

    1. GroundTruth   12 months ago

      Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it. Lefties pissed about Trump taking office or Righties pissed about Trump being convicted, one of the things I did get out of my short time as a Boy Scout was that the only time you fly the flag upside down is to indicate your ship is sinking and you desperately need assistance, or similar actual physical disaster. (The other useful thing from Boy Scouts was about how to handle and care for a knife.)

      Flying the flag upside down to show your annoyance is just tacky, and flying it vertically with the field on the right just shows your ignorance.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's FTC Chair Is Continuing To Push Lina Khan's Antitrust
Ideology

Jack Nicastro | From the June 2025 issue

Brickbat: They Won't Miss It

Charles Oliver | 5.22.2025 4:00 AM

America's Credit Is Falling—and the Government Is Still Digging Deeper Into Debt

Veronique de Rugy | 5.22.2025 12:13 AM

A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House

Jacob Sullum | 5.21.2025 6:00 PM

Supreme Court Orders Maine Legislator Censured for Social Media Post Must Get Voting Rights Back

Emma Camp | 5.21.2025 4:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!