One Thing Every Modern President Has in Common: They All Spent More Than the Last Guy
The vibe shift that really matters—a reduction in the size, scope, and spending of government—hasn't happened, and America is worse off for it.
The vibe shift that really matters—a reduction in the size, scope, and spending of government—hasn't happened, and America is worse off for it.
Silencing "Fighting Bob" details how the government targeted anti-war critics like Sen. Robert La Follette.
A New York Times scoop reveals that Chief Justice Roberts was concerned that the EPA would (again) get away with imposing unlawful burdens on utilities.
The Court's 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan is freshly relevant in light of recent efforts to restrict speech through government intimidation.
The defense secretary's asserted authority to control the speech of retired military officers "would chill public participation by veterans," a brief supporting Mark Kelly warns.
Robby Soave and Christian Britschgi discuss Eric Swalwell's fall from grace and how tax day radicalizes us every year.
The court ruled that police can demand a physical ID under the state's stop-and-identify law.
Instead of confronting the problems with the state's heavily regulated insurance market, lawmakers are looking for a scapegoat.
A pending case will test whether courts are willing to enforce the anticommandeering doctrine in the context of environmental protection.
Plus: The House passes a short-term FISA extension, Ron Wyden urges fellow Senate Democrats to oppose a "clean" bill, and Norway gets robot buses.
Republicans can’t decide whether the war is too early to stop, too late to stop, or nonexistent in the first place.
The Justice Department is permanently blocked from prosecuting Californians who fail to register when the state no longer requires it.
The plan is not completely terrible. But many importers may still have difficulty getting the refund money owed to them.
What is a greater rejection of America's founding ideals than an overreaching government trampling the First Amendment?
Remembering the infuriating case of United States v. “The Spirit of ’76.”
"I don't even care if you or your mom are inside. I actually hope you are. You both deserve to die. I am going to kill you, Robyn. I don't understand why you don't get that. I will burn you. You will die."
Government rules have made it far more expensive for families.
A popular revolt against state-led zoning reform in Colorado, Massachusetts' contradictory approach to housing supply, and how municipalities lobby to kill housing.
Plus: The Alito retirement rumors keep swirling.
Adler v. Shugerman on the Supreme Court's handling of separation of powers concerns on the "shadow docket."
Red tape issued by bureaucrats outstrips the impact of legislation.
Act 10 saved taxpayers billions and helped government run more efficiently. Fifteen years later, a questionable legal challenge may doom it.
As lawmakers of both major parties hustle to regulate their preferred villains, they're losing sight of the big picture. The possible gains to humanity from AI are enormous.
The outcome is unclear. But the judges seemed skeptical of the Trump Administration's claims that Section 122 grants them sweeping tariff powers.
The case will determine whether an unnamed plaintiff can take the hospital and its doctors to federal court.
The Court of International Trade is weighing the legality of the import taxes that the president wants to impose under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The kids climate cases continue to have standing problems in federal court.
Greenlandic hunters fear a U.S. takeover because Americans "think whales and seals are cute and shouldn’t be hunted."
One weird trick could extend Social Security's solvency while reducing payments to the wealthiest households. But it doesn't go far enough.
It would be easy to wave it away and move on. But that's how the U.S. got in such a dire fiscal situation.
The feeling is perfectly consistent: Graham feels it should be as easy as possible for the U.S. to start a war, and as hard as possible to end one.
How the digital privacy rights of millions are at stake in Chatrie v. United States.
The newlywed couple thought they were doing “everything the right way” by reporting to the base to start their lives together.
I submitted the brief on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
He's using tools that were advertised as humane, but he isn't hiding the cruelty involved.
The Administration's constitutional arguments are unconvincing, but rejecting them is not necessary to decide United States v. Barbara
Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar.
"No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded when he enjoined the project.
Plus: Fox and Sinclair go crying to the FCC over sports streaming, and the Masters ticket lottery makes it too hard to get in
Plus: Wisconsin governor vetoes porn age-check bill, more charges for penis protester, the Komodo dragon theory of social media, and more...
Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden asked the Supreme Court to abolish nationwide injunctions, which allow federal judges to stop a federal policy from going into effect.
The government's new rule reverses a Biden-era anti-contracting directive and returns to a more contractor-friendly posture. But will this tug of war ever end?
There are far too few checks left on executive power.
The leader of Reform U.K. pledged to keep the "triple lock" mechanism in place, which is driving the state pension program to financial unsustainability.
The proposal is "an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and would make Americans less, not more, safe." Thankfully, Congress is unlikely to adopt it.
A week after Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to pause AI data center construction indefinitely, Maine is poised to institute the first statewide ban.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! 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 thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks