Estreicher and Babbitt are right to conclude that Trump's tariffs violate the nondelegation doctrine, but wrong to reject other arguments agains them.
Judge James C. Ho recently described a troubling phenomenon on the 5th Circuit and the government abuse it enables.
Indications are that the second Trump Administration will not have as significant an effect on the Courts as the first.
Plus: Cuomo has a hard time taking no for an answer, a pro-party manifesto, Trump's about-face on Ukraine, and more...
Plus: A fond farewell to Black Sabbath.
There's a tension between Progressives' efforts to delegitimize the courts and hopes the judiciary to constrain executive power.
Helping servers takes more than a temporary tip tax break.
After criticizing the agency for being ineffective for months, the Trump administration now plans to reform it to supplement state disaster response efforts.
The hawkish defender of Guantanamo Bay and the post-9/11 security state worries President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown is threatening civil liberties.
Justice Jackson Sees Her Colleagues' Rulings As Threats to Democracy and the Rule of Law
Criminal justice reform advocates are still hopeful the office can secure outside funding and bring much-needed transparency to Arizona's prisons.
The D.C. Circuit resolves a dispute over which set of visa regulations bind the public.
Despite the setback, Middletown Township is taking the case to the state supreme court.
"including Plaintiff's divorce proceedings and criminal case."
The true superpower of the lawyer is to turn all questions into questions about procedure—often, about procedure about procedure.
It's an obvious abuse of emergency powers, a claim to unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and a threat to the economy and the rule of law.
The Federal Trade Commission ignored mandatory regulatory impact analyses in an attempt to institute its "click-to-cancel" rule.
In a bill packed with spending, one provision offers real gains for health care choice and savings.
The Constitution requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
The diversity and quality of the briefs opposing Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs speaks for itself.
Katherine Yon Ebright and Leah Tulin of the Brennan Center make the case against judicial deference to Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
More questions arise over how Florida’s newest immigration detention center is being funded by the Trump administration.
The Cato Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance urge the Federal Circuit to extend the logic of a decision against the president's far-reaching import taxes.
Matt and Tuckey Hernandez lost their daughters for two years after their infant's medical issues were misidentified as abuse.
Bureaucratic requirements impose burdens only on people not inclined to break the law.
Yes, argues the Brandeis Center in a letter to Microsoft.
Plus: The Supreme Court declines to hear major eviction moratorium case, Maine passes zoning reform, and why tourist traps are good, actually.
“There's no such thing as a free stadium,” says J.C. Bradbury. “You can't just pull revenue out of thin air.”
Why Edward Snowden deserves not only a presidential pardon, but a hero's welcome home.
When Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick is worried about our constitutional order, we should all pay heed.
The taxes on sound suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, originally enacted in 1934, were meant to be prohibitive, imposing bans in the guise of raising revenue.
The ban is a bad law. But leaving it on the books and willfully ignoring it sets a potentially more dangerous precedent.
Congress should now turn its attention to abolishing the unnecessary federal education bureaucracy.
Several of the items on the Declaration's list of grievances against King George III also apply to Donald Trump today.
Without Newsom's efforts, major reforms to California's stifling environmental laws would have died on the vine.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
There have likely been hundreds of filings with AI-hallucinated citations in American courts, but this is the first time I've seen a court note that a judge had included such a citation.
Can plaintiffs be sanctioned because they "refused to voluntarily dismiss [a defendant] after reviewing the additional information from his cell phone and bank records" that seems to exonerate him?
The ruling tells an interesting story about how the very body that created a cause of action for victims of federal abuse has since worked to undermine that right.
This is what Washington calls compromise: The House proposes $1, the Senate proposes $2, and somehow, the government ends up spending $3.
Plus: Trade deal with Vietnam, Romanian right-wing presidential candidate sent to trial, and more...
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
