What Does Murthy v. Missouri, Today's Government/Social Media Case, Tell Us About First Amendment Law?
Very little.
The candidate makes the case against the two-party system.
Murthy v. Missouri challenges government efforts to suppress dissenting viewpoints on social media.
Although critics say the Court’s current approach is unworkable, it has been undeniably effective at defeating constitutionally dubious gun regulations.
There is a great deal of panic surrounding the "extreme" nature of the current Court. But that is often not based in reality.
Should pseudonymous litigants, and any precedents set in their cases, be known by the initials of the law firms that represent them?
"It’s not like public health is infallible," the Stanford professor and Great Barrington Declaration author tells Reason's Nick Gillespie.
Two years after the Dobbs decision, Americans are increasingly concerned with how abortion bans affect women with wanted pregnancies.
The Town of Rose Bud restriction appears aimed at a particular proposed constitutional amendment, which would "require all schools receiving public funds to meet identical standards and would require universal access to pre-K education."
and continuing the conduct while following those employees."
A proposed USDA rule would require RFID tagging of all cattle and bison that move across state lines.
Paul Erlinger was sentenced to 15 years in prison based largely on a determination made by a judge—not a jury.
The Court says "a credible threat" justifies a ban on gun possession but does not address situations where there is no such judicial finding.
Upcoming legislation would repeal parts of the 1873 law that could be used to target abortion, but the Comstock Act's reach is much more broad than that.
A pilot study encouraged parents to let their kids go free-range.
In this, the court agrees with the Florida Attorney General and the Governor’s office, and disagrees with the challengers who are trying to get the statute struck down on First Amendment grounds.
Two public university professors were disciplined for posting fliers saying a colleague was racist, and that a student group (Turning Point USA) was a racist "national hate group" with "ties to white supremacy."
The justices ruled that "objective evidence" of retaliation does not require "very specific comparator evidence."
The Cato Institute's Ian Vasquez recently organized a conference in Argentina featuring President Javier Milei. He gives an update on the presidency.
A handful of Republican lawmakers worked with Democrats to repeal an 1864 law banning most abortions.
The government alleges that Nikhil Gupta was involved in a "plot, directed by an employee of the Indian government, to target and assassinate a U.S. citizen for his support of the Sikh separatist movement in India."
The decision clears the way for a jury to consider Megan and Adam McMurry's constitutional claims against the officers who snatched their daughter.
So holds a federal court, also concluding that earlier sexual discussions could likewise justify restriction in the open public comment period (treated by the law as a “limited public forum,” in which reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions are constitutional).
X's child porn detection system doesn’t violate an Illinois biometric privacy law, the judge ruled.
Numerous federal appeals courts have ruled that filming police is protected under the First Amendment, but police continue to illegally arrest people for it.
Vague rules and an unjustified raid led to Bryan Malinowski’s brutal death at the hands of federal agents.
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.
Whatever you think of abortion, the Department of Justice's latest approach to these cases is misguided.
An early article from what will eventually be several on Information as Medicine.
Issuing a posthumous pardon for Bennett would reaffirm our nation’s commitment to free expression and intellectual freedom.
Plus: A listener asks the editors about the Selective Service.
Thanks for the heads up, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
A California trial court so ruled, and the California Court of Appeal just upheld that decision.
Facing an opponent who has been credibly described as a sexual predator, Biden instead emphasizes Trump's cover-up of a consensual encounter.
One of several interesting questions that arises in a case involving regulations of pregnancy centers that seek to help pregnant women without offering abortions or abortion counseling.
A Harvard Dean suggests universities can and should limit controversial speech.
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