Justice Thomas Argues the Court Should at Some Point Consider Whether "Assault Weapons" Bans Violate Second Amendment
Justice Alito takes a similar view, but, at least in this case, this view didn't get the four votes necessary to grant review.
Justice Alito takes a similar view, but, at least in this case, this view didn't get the four votes necessary to grant review.
Plus: A disappointing first round of "Baby YIMBY" grant awards, President Joe Biden endorses rent control, and House Republicans propose cutting housing spending.
But, at least in this case, this view didn't get the four votes necessary to grant review.
The defendant had alleged that he, his family, and his lawyer had been threatened by the public, but the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the trial court wasn't given adequate evidence to justify sealing.
And a grand jury says that's illegal.
The Court is remanding these two cases for more analysis—but it made its views on some key issues clear.
China's free speech record is bad, but the federal government's isn't so great either.
Abortion should have been an easy win for Biden, but his incoherent answer during Thursday's debate allowed Trump to come out on top.
The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law allows or requires.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way.
Americans shouldn’t count on the department to use the technology responsibly or in a limited way.
Assange's plea deal sets a threatening precedent for free speech and journalism.
The decision rejects a system in which the agency imposes civil penalties after investigating people and validating its own allegations.
The decision reverses the Court's previous stay of a lower court decision blocking part of the law.
A year after a court told Maryland police that Cellebrite searches were too broad, Baltimore quietly resumed using the software.
Although the FBI never produced evidence that Ali Hemani was a threat to national security, it seems determined to imprison him by any means necessary.
The real dissents are the concurrences by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
The standing requirements laid down by the majority might make it extremely difficult or impossible for victims of indirect goverment censorship to get their cases to court.
The verdict in Murthy v. Missouri is a big, flashing green light that jawboning may resume.
It's a classic case of jawboning.
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.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks