The Federal Highway Administration is asking Texas officials to hit pause on a massive highway widening project while it examines whether it violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Plus: Copyright case a win for Google and fair use, California considering repeal of its "loitering with intent to commit prostitution" law, and more...
Existing laws are more than adequate to handle the Capitol rioters.
"This is beyond the pale. The indiscriminate use of the confidentiality stamp alone warrants the denial of the entirety of the motions."
A moot case about Trump blocking tweets leads to concerns that tech companies have too much control over speech.
The chaos at Lake Washington Institute of Technology is by no means an isolated occurrence.
Gripes about publishers getting "private commercial benefit" from "hate speech, propaganda, and statements that seek to destabilize American democracy"; argument that "[t]he public figure doctrine emerged in an era prior to the Internet advertising model that rewards news organizations for the ongoing display of defamatory content."
Remember: Lawyers’ true superpower is the power to turn all questions into questions about procedure.
A privacy controversy in a lawsuit by privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg (formerly of EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center).
“An officer violates the Fourth Amendment if he shoots an unarmed, incapacitated suspect who is moving away from everyone present at the scene.”
The lawsuit was brought by casino developer Steve Wynn, over a press release put out by Bloom related to a sexual harassment claim that Bloom's firm brought on behalf of a dancer.
Civil liberties advocates warn that the legislation threatens activism, journalism, and satire.
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.
No, says the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, though over a dissent.
"In Tinker, this Court held that "[i]t can hardly be argued that … students … shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Yet [the school district] argues that students shed much of their freedom of speech even outside the schoolhouse gate, so long as their off-campus speech is reasonably expected to reach campus."
Luther Hall was assaulted so severely he required a spinal fusion.
A federal appeals court rejects a highly implausible redefinition of machine guns.
in light of the Supreme Court's forthcoming Mahanoy and Americans For Prosperity cases.
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.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks