Requiring Registered Sex Offenders to Post Signs on Halloween Saying "No Candy or Treats at This Residence"
unconstitutionally compels speech, says the Eighth Circuit federal court of appeals.
unconstitutionally compels speech, says the Eighth Circuit federal court of appeals.
If the decision doesn't go en banc, it may go to the Supreme Court, because the Second Circuit held the opposite (and there's thus a circuit split).
Even as the president blows up drug boats, the government routinely declines to pursue charges against smugglers nabbed by the Coast Guard.
Plaintiff claims his actual offenses were a curfew violation during 2020 protests and spitting on FBI agent.
So concludes a federal district in Louisiana, disagreeing with a Ninth Circuit panel.
The president asserted broad powers to deport people, impose tariffs, and deploy the National Guard based on his own unilateral determinations.
Puzzling over a curious omission from the conservative justice.
Despite their general ignorance of constitutional law, bears pose a much less grave threat to your civil liberties than humans do.
From a Justice Department press release as to the original forgery: "Michael Arnstein's blatant criminal scheme to exploit the authority of the federal judiciary for his company's benefit was outrageous. As Arnstein has learned, his attempts to remove negative reviews about his business from Google search results by forging a U.S. District Court judge's signature may have worked in the short term, but it also earned him nine months in a federal prison."
Creeping authoritarianism in the European Union gets pushback from an administration that has its own rocky relationship with free speech.
Presidents, legislators, and police officers were desperate to blame anyone but themselves.
So holds a majority of the Eighth Circuit federal court of appeals, sitting en banc.
Is unfettered majority rule actually a good idea for the left to embrace?
It is yet another ruling that shields the government from liability for damages caused by law enforcement.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s latest is an anti-tech omnibus, combining years' worth of dangerous policy ideas into one big, bad bill.
Critics of cash bail say it creates a two-tiered justice system: Those who can pay maintain their freedom, while those unable to pay remain behind bars.
ICE Salt Lake City apparently isn't answering its phone.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said "videotaping" agents was violence—but Border Patrol brought a film crew to Chicago-area raids.
But the Colorado Court of Appeals just reversed that, in part on First Amendment grounds.
The Trump administration's chest-pounding approach is costing lives and eroding freedoms.
The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had a rocky 2025.
The department's lawsuit notes that the prohibited firearms are "in common use" for "lawful purposes," meaning they are covered by the Second Amendment.
The justices suggested the president is misinterpreting "the regular forces," a key phrase in the statute on which he is relying.
"Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendants' conduct caused a mental condition in which Mr. McBreairty could not control his suicidal impulses."
Comment on this blog = reaction "from the Stanford Law School" = "negative reaction of the legal community."
Parents faced arrests, investigations, and fear-driven rules—but there was also meaningful progress toward making independence normal again.
Tony Gilroy examines how Andor portrays authoritarian power as a bureaucratic system, the moral compromises of life under surveillance, and the role ordinary people play in enforcing oppressive systems.
Plus: Homeownership myths and realities, discrimination at the theater, career diplomats brought home, and more...
The matter stems from a controversy over books with sexual content in the school library, and the parent's shouting that school board members "should be arrested."
Remembering an important voice from the founding era.
The lawsuit stems from Media Matters' claim that X's "content moderation policies permitted the placement of 'pro-Nazi' content next to advertisements for major brands."
The appeals court ruled that administrators violated Stuart Reges' First Amendment rights when they investigated and threatened to punish him for constitutionally protected speech.
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