When (1) states seek to protect abortion rights / gun rights / speech rights against private restriction, and (2) Congress seeks to encourage such private restrictions by preempting the state law protections, might such federal preemption violate the Constitution?
A new decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Plus: Columbus cops charged over treatment of protesters, Biden cancels Trump's TikTok ban, and more...
There are "Two Obstacles to (Merely) Chipping Away at Roe in Dobbs," he writes
For decades, Western apologists downplayed the horrific consequences of China’s reproductive restrictions..
National surveys obscure large regional variations in public opinion about abortion limits.
Plus: Death penalty proposed for Atlanta massage parlor shooter, judge tosses Google antitrust suit, and more...
Plus: Clarity on Adam Toledo's death, Big Tech antitrust bill approved by House Democrats, and more...
Plus: Legal battle over published arrest records, senators introduce cruise ship legislation, and more...
The 9-7 en banc ruling appears to rest on the ban applying on to doctors who know the woman's reason; women could apparently still get such abortions if they don't disclose the reason.
Plus: Copyright case a win for Google and fair use, California considering repeal of its "loitering with intent to commit prostitution" law, and more...
While overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to new restrictions in many states, legal access to abortion would be unaffected in most of the country.
Plus: Wisconsin may approve microschools, what will Biden Title IX guidance look like, and more...
Plus: Amazon responds to Parler lawsuit, Trump's execution spree continues, a bad ruling on safe injection houses, and more...
Parsing issues at the intersection of current affairs and the world's largest religious denomination is no easy task.
The same logic could apply when churches, synagogues, mosques, bookstores, gun stores, fur stores, and similar places are targeted by their enemies. We've filed an amicus brief before the Georgia Court of Appeals, in support of getting the verdict reversed.
Plus: More losses for the Trump campaign, a win for cannabis delivery services, a ban on LGBTQ conversion therapy violates First Amendment rights, and more...
When "fundamental rights are restricted" during an emergency, he says, the courts "cannot close their eyes."
American voters have the chance to usher in a few libertarian policies this election, courtesy of these state ballot measures.
Democrats and Republicans agree on that point, although they disagree about what it means in practice.
The Sixth Circuit joins the Eighth Circuit in recognizing the import of Chief Justice Roberts' controlling opinion in June Medical Services
Such theories are not based in fact.
Plus: Trump says he plans to hold rallies despite lack of negative COVID-19 test, Biden won't answer question on court-packing, and more...
What's next for SCOTUS?
The 5th Circuit judge is a mixed bag from a libertarian perspective.
The presumptive Democratic vice presidential nominee offers a highly circumscribed notion of the role of faith in public life.
The hip-hop star's wild, disjointed presentation offers both red meat and poison for right, left, and libertarian.
Plus: "Heartbeat law" ruled unconstitutional, introducing the Atlas of Surveillance, Brave New World reimagined, and more...
The chief justice has managed to infuriate every major political faction.
Plus: More (bad, weird, and occasionally good) new state laws that start taking effect today.
Can the government compel speech? For Supreme Court justices, that seems to depend on the content of that speech.
Plus: More states pause reopening, Oregon measure to legalize psilocybin moves forward, and more...
Roberts dissented in 2016 when SCOTUS struck down an abortion law. What changed this time around?
The Chief Justice provides the pivotal vote in the June Medical Services abortion case and Seila Law v. CFPB.
The justices weigh abortion, school choice, and federal anti-discrimination law.
The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
But the ban might still be blocked as to women who are far enough along in their pregnancies that delaying an abortion would make it illegal.
Legal scholars Lindsay Wiley and Steve Vladeck explain why courts should not give special deference to the government in cases challenging the constitutionality of anti-coronavirus policies.
"Delaying abortions by weeks does nothing to further the State's interest in combatting COVID-19," they say.
"any patient who, based on the treating physician's medical judgment, would be past the legal limit for an abortion in Texas ... on April 22, 2020" (the date until which the Texas restrictions suspend abortions) remains able to get an abortion, despite the restrictions.
But the ban might still be blocked as to women who are far enough along in their pregnancies that delaying an abortion would make it illegal.
On appeal, Ohio interpreted the limit (part of a temporary ban on all "non-essential" surgeries and procedures) as not banning abortions when "any delay will jeopardize the woman's right to obtain an abortion," but only as delaying earlier-term abortions that can be delayed—but it apparently hadn't made that argument in the trial court.
Plus: "Netflix for 3-D guns," viral authoritarianism, COVID-19 behind bars, and more…
Can it justify temporarily forbidding people to buy guns?
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
