The lottery winner is suing an ex-girlfriend based on a non-disclosure agreement aimed at concealing his identity. (The intervention, at this point, is aimed at just unsealing various sealed documents in the case, not at disclosing the parties' names.)
Tucson and Pima County have a history of passing restrictions that conflict with state law.
Protests in the country come from an understandable place. But their demands are divorced from certain unfortunate economic realities.
U.S. prosecutors are looking to wriggle out of an espionage trial for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
"Mayors should not be allowed to launder animus through warrants," the former city council member's lawyer told the justices.
The officers are avoiding accountability after getting qualified immunity.
at least when the license requires 6000 hours of training on matters far removed from his expertise.
and so can the professor's Title VII and Title IX discrimination claims against the university.
Some supposed defenders of the right to bear arms react with alarm.
Hours before the president said "no one should be jailed" for marijuana use, his Justice Department was saying no one who uses marijuana should be allowed to own guns.
State officials “jawboned” financial firms into cutting ties with the gun-rights group.
The Biden administration’s social media meddling went far beyond "information" and "advice."
If partisans have one thing in common, it's confirmation bias.
The justices established guidelines for determining whether that is true in any particular case.
Diosdado Cabello, Nicolás Maduro's right-hand man, is threatening retribution against the satirical website.
The defamation lawsuit is the latest in Trump's campaign of lawfare against media outlets, but all of those suits have failed so far.
Justice Jackson, like Justice Breyer (whom she replaced and for whom she clerked), seems to be considering an approach that is more embracing of speech restrictions that she views as especially urgent—including perhaps ones that departs from precedents such as the Pentagon Papers case.
The government can't block viewpoints it condemns from its own property that has been opened to publicspeech. Should there be limits on government systematically and substantially encouraging private entities to block the same viewpoints from their property—which may be much more important to public debate than the government property where speech remains free?
Such speech can be found to be "impermissible harassment," the court says, partly because "deference to schoolteachers is especially appropriate today, where, increasingly, what is harmful or innocent speech is in the eye of the beholder."
The government is entitled to try to persuade social media to take down posts, but not to coerce them to do so.
Several justices seemed concerned that an injunction would interfere with constitutionally permissible contacts.
Plus: A listener asks about Republicans and Democrats monopolizing political power in the United States.
Citizens should be able to choose the same high-quality defensive arms that peace officers choose
The story behind the city's ban on unlicensed drone businesses is even weirder than the ban itself.
The company leaves Texas over an “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous” age-verification law.
The former civil liberties group continues morphing into a progressive organization.
The newspaper portrays the constitutional challenge to the government's social media meddling as a conspiracy by Donald Trump's supporters.
The New York Times and the Atlantic report on how the movement to curb exclusionary zoning and build more housing has managed to cut across ideological lines.
James Crumbley, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, may be an unsympathetic defendant. But this prosecution still made little sense.
The president of the new University of Austin wants to reverse the decline of higher education in America.
The Indiana Court of Appeals, though, reverses the order, concluding the judge wasn't allowed to issue such an order on his own initiative; it doesn't decide whether such an order would violate the First Amendment.
This bears on when the official's comment deletion or blocking decisions may violate the First Amendment.
The Institute for Justice says its data show that a century-old Supreme Court doctrine created a huge exception to the Fourth Amendment.
"It's a disturbing gift of unprecedented authority to President Biden and the Surveillance State," said Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.).
Prominent political commentator and zoning reform advocate comments on my work on this topic (with Joshua Braver).
"Following the science" as the Supreme Court considers the safety and efficacy of medical abortions.
Instead of freeing Americans from censorship, the TikTok bill would tighten the U.S. government's control over social media.
and also because private clubs generally have broad discretion in interpreting their internal rules.
Teaneck already had tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A real estate sale caused it to snap.
Even as they attack the Biden administration's crusade against "misinformation," Missouri and Louisiana defend legal restrictions on content moderation.
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
