Just in Time for National Bourbon Day (June 14), a Bourbon Trademark Case
Crafted with love in the cellars of the Sixth Circuit.
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.
Defamation insurance, child labor, and a virulently racist attorney.
Did his murderer walk because Virginia law did not permit African Americans to testify against whites?
And woe to anyone who attempts to inform tribal members that there may be alternatives to their traditional practices.
The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected Snapchat's federal 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 defense, though Snapchat may still win under Georgia law.
A plea for a more refined view, inspired by yesterday's decision in Hughes.
DNA testing reveals that long-used forensic methods are error-riddled.
The Harvard psychologist splits the difference between Dr. Pangloss and Pope Francis.
The Delaware Criminal Justice Council found it difficult to "justify the resources that have been expend on so few" participants with such a "low rate of success."
Libertarians also tend to favor free expression. And there appears to be a real-world trade off.
Will the federal courts issue directly clashing national injunctions about DACA?
Pet food puffery, suspiciously loud laughter, and the school of hard knocks.
Herein of "Folsom Prison Blues" and criminal jurisdiction.
The Withdrawal of the Obama-Era "Dear Colleague Letter" (which made transgender access to the bathrooms of students' self-perceived gender rather than their anatomical sex mandatory on schools) was the right thing under federal law. But now the arguments are being made under state law.
"Freedom of the press," as I've argued in earlier posts, was understood as protecting the freedom of all to use the printing press -- not just a freedom of the profession or industry that we might call "the press."
Rothschilds, "fake Jews," "termite[s]," Louis Farrakhan, and more.
More undocumented immigration meant less violent crime.
Rauch is one of my favorite writers -- plus I just turned 50, so I suppose I want to believe ....
Prompted by the apparent catching of the Golden State Killer.
The last thing left-leaning feminists want is a constitutional amendment that would jeopardize such things as preferential treatment for woman-owned businesses.
I just started to listening to this a few months ago (late adopter), I know, and I'm totally hooked.
Is Maine so multicultural now that it can't bring itself to criminalize female genital mutilation within its borders? If the line on cross-cultural tolerance shouldn't be drawn there, where should it be drawn?
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