That's what a New Jersey appellate court seems to have created, based on the theory that a criminal's coworkers somehow have a special duty to the victim -- even when the crime has nothing at all to do with the job.
On the periphery of the periphery, Coloradans energetically exercised their inherent rights of sovereignty and self-government.
A new proposal to give Democrats additional Supreme Court appointments by temporarily increasing the size of the Supreme Court would cause much the same problems as conventional court-packing would.
Episode 228 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
"The Attendees allege the Officers shepherded them into a violent crowd of protesters and actively prevented them from reaching safety. The Officers continued to implement this plan even while witnessing the violence firsthand, and even though they knew the mob had attacked Trump supporters at the Convention Center earlier that evening."
Says private discussions and Kavanaugh's strong record eased his concerns about the 4th Amendment
Cop calls that supposedly show the trouble caused by dispensaries mostly had nothing to do with dispensaries.
Justice Kennedy's retirement will have a significant impact on the Roberts Court beyond its ideological makeup.
A Politico symposium offers assessments by a wide range of legal scholars and commentators. And I offer some additional thoughts of my own.
Since 2005, just 32 officers involved in fatal shootings have been convicted on criminal charges.
A decision with major implications for the national injunction--not Trump v. Hawaii but Gill v. Whitford
Interview of David Sanger in episode 223 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
An interesting separate concurrence in the "travel ban" decision.
The Supreme Court justices divide among themselves in many different ways.
Mo money mo problems, open-air burn pits, and the case of the missing tattoos.
A big case. Here's an ongoing Q&A, which I will add to through the day.
Still more interesting line-ups from SCOTUS
The Court broke in untraditional ways in making decisions about taxing internet sales and the Appointments Clause
Today was a terrible, no-good, very bad day for Kris Kobach.
Episode 222 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
Masterpiece Cakeshop is not the only decision to surprise this term.
Crafted with love in the cellars of the Sixth Circuit.
Dangerous tennis shoes, a magnificent distillery, and bad advice from the IRS.
There is no longer any legal or financial consequence for failing to comply with the individual mandate, so how are states (or anyone else) harmed by it?
Today, I suggest ways the Supreme Court might adjust qualified immunity doctrine to comport with evidence of its role in constitutional litigation, and ways lower courts might resolve qualified immunity motions to mitigate some of the worst aspects of the doctrine.
Although some have argued that qualified immunity encourages constitutional innovation, this defense of qualified immunity should not save the doctrine from the chopping block.
There's room for reasonable disagreement on many aspects of the latest ACA litigation, but the severability question should be clear.
A plan to divide California into three states will be on the state's referendum ballot in November. If it passes and is approved by Congress, it could potentially be a significant change for the better.
A Chicago suburb's law to confiscate firearms and magazines has been blocked by a temporary restraining order.
The Supreme Court should do away with or restrict qualified immunity because, in Justice Sotomayor's words, it "renders the protections" of the Constitution "hollow."
A mom says her daughter was almost abducted at a rest stop. That's a stretch.
Although the Supreme Court says qualified immunity is necessary to protect government officials from financial liability and the costs and burdens of litigation, all available evidence suggests the doctrine fails to achieve these intended policy goals.
The latest state challenge to the ACA is clever. The Justice Department's response is not.
Noted attorney George Conway dismantles the constitutional arguments against Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
If the Supreme Court takes Justice Thomas's suggestion to reconsider qualified immunity and takes seriously available evidence about qualified immunity's historical precedents and current operation, the Court could not justify continued existence of the doctrine in its current form.
I discuss last week's Supreme Court opinions and much more with Professors Dan Epps and Ian Samuel.
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
