Cops Tried To Force a Man To Delete a Video of Them Beating a Suspect. They Got Qualified Immunity.
The officers knowingly violated the First Amendment, said the court. But that doesn't matter.
The officers knowingly violated the First Amendment, said the court. But that doesn't matter.
A blanket ban on medical procedures for minors is not a prescription for human liberty.
Sounds right to me.
It is the first city in the U.S. to do so.
A federal appellate court lets a professor's First Amendment claim go forward, in an opinion that powerfully protects faculty academic freedom more broadly.
“It is not the role of the executive—particularly the unelected administrative state—to dictate” the terms of criminal law, said the 6th Circuit.
Even Joe Biden and Barack Obama were willing to acknowledge this basic fact just a few years ago.
Threatening government action to stop "snotty tweets" is not a good look.
In 28 states, there's no minimum age for arresting kids.
Predictive policing lets authorities add a science-y gloss to hammering people who rub them the wrong way.
A long awaited decision in a challenge to the Trump Administration's "bump stock" ban tees up some interesting questions for the High Court's review.
The suggestion that the ordinance could have prevented Monday's mass shooting is utterly implausible.
This awful gun control talking point won’t go away.
Under the First Amendment, the question of whether Assange qualifies as a legitimate journalist is irrelevant.
Thirteen years after Heller, it's time for the Supreme Court to settle whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home.
According to the dissent, the appeals court "has decided that the Second Amendment does not mean what it says."
My article considers the implications of a major takings case currently before the Supreme Court.
Cracking down on protesters angry about police violence doesn't exactly inspire civic trust.
but with "blurring images of [Susan] Muller's body and blood spatter."
Plus: Appeals court considers whether nonstop surveillance violate due process, Utah governor signs porn filter bill into law, and more...
The president has ordered the Education Department to consider rescinding reforms aimed at protecting the due process rights of accused students.
The former Trump campaign lawyer insists her allegations about systematic voting fraud were not "statements of fact."
It is hard to see how an "assault weapon" ban or expanded background checks could have prevented this attack.
In this post, I consider some additional issues that came up in the recent Supreme Court oral argument in an important takings case.
That’s a clearly established constitutional mandate, the Eighth Circuit holds, so a university can’t get qualified immunity from liability in such a case.
The Court seems likely to rule in favor of property rights in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
When Amazon won't sell your book, you can head to Barnes & Noble. When government cancels your expression, there's nowhere left to go.
Plus: Wisconsin may approve microschools, what will Biden Title IX guidance look like, and more...
I'm continuing to serialize a forthcoming article of mine that discusses (among other things) such a proposed interpretation of libel law.
Once an up-and-coming city, Portland was destroyed from within by radical activism and political ineptitude.
It strains credulity to believe random tweets can lead otherwise normal people to drive across the country and stage an insurrection.
whether the U.S., China, Israel, or anyone else.
In context, it seems clear that the post's reference to "Chinese" is indeed a reference to the Chinese government, not to people of Chinese extraction.
Politicians on the right and the left are coming for your free speech.
The court doesn't decide whether the column was libelous, but just that the National Review wasn't liable for Steyn's post, because Steyn wasn't an employee.
A bit of background on the current law of libel; I'll have more about the implications of this in an upcoming post.
Union resistance shut down last year’s effort.
Here's a better idea: Abolish the "Selective" Service.
I publish something about you on Jan. 1, but I don't learn that it's false until Jan. 2. You then sue me for not taking down the post—should my liability turn on my mental state as of Jan. 1, or as of the time you sue?
"Public access [to judicial records] serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its fairness."