Weak Dollar
Plus: Columbia's Hamas apologists, Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, and more...
Plus: Columbia's Hamas apologists, Musk's lawsuit against OpenAI, and more...
Texas A&M's Board of Regents voted to ban drag shows on the grounds that they objectify women and violate state and federal policies against promoting "gender ideology."
So the Missouri Court of Appeals concludes, in allowing a negligence/design defect case to proceed against Lyft, based on a driver's having been murdered by riders who "fraudulently and anonymously request[ed]" a ride.
The Supreme Court will decide whether this threat to the Second Amendment is legally viable.
That's the correct decision, though I don't think there should even have been a question about it.
largely because the compensatory damages were just $1.
The department insists its directive will not suppress First Amendment rights.
A federal magistrate judge flags the issue, though doesn't purport to resolve it.
If the Mexican executive branch obeyed the Mexican Constitution, the Mexican people would be safer
Justice Thomas dissents from the Court's refusal to resolve a clear circuit split.
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank provides a helpful summary, with a little help from me.
Carr advocates greater control over social media by federal regulators, despite a reputation for supporting free speech.
If the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn't have enough data to enact a rule, it shouldn't be making informal recommendations either.
He also can't get a birth certificate or Social Security number for his daughter.
"[I]n seeking to hold Cooper Union liable for [students'] expression, [plaintiff] cannot help but say the quiet part loud: sweeping otherwise-protected political expression into the hostility analysis will create pressure on institutions 'to suppress speech to ensure compliance with Title VI,' causing 'regulated entities to adopt restrictive policies in an effort to avoid liability' for a hostile environment."
Most courts have ruled that vanity license plates are private speech and protected from viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
The award-winning journalist discusses the collapse of a post–World War II consensus, online speech police, and the legacy media on the latest episode of Just Asking Questions.
The cops tried to cover up their mistake after they "terrorized" the family, according to a lawsuit.
The authors of a picture book about two male penguins raising a chick together argue excluding their book from school libraries violates their free speech rights.
Elon Musk's vague White House role is only controversial because he's trying to slash bureaucracy.
After a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the city backed down. But it's still part of a worrying trend.
Transporting "an unborn child" from Montana to another state "with the intent to obtain an abortion that is illegal" in Montana, or assisting anyone in doing so, would be illegal under House Bill 609.
New York Times columnist and linguist John McWhorter discusses the rise and fall of "woke," DEI and affirmative action, and his new book on the history of pronouns.
Chairman Andrew Ferguson’s assault on "Big Tech censorship" aims to override editorial decisions protected by the First Amendment.
Whether or not a reasonable police officer violates clearly established law when he declines to check the features and address of his target house before raiding it is thus still up for debate.
Interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin puts loyalty to Donald Trump ahead of loyalty to the Constitution.
"It was blamed on a new hire who hadn't 'fully absorbed' the startup's culture."
Combine moral zealotry with increasingly blurred lines between political speech and violence long enough, and the outcome is predictable.
The president's portrayal of journalism he does not like as consumer fraud is legally frivolous and blatantly unconstitutional.
But though other Justices had expressed doubt about Hill before, only Justices Thomas and Alito noted their willingness to grant review in this case.
Is Florida forgetting that the First Amendment applies there too?