The judgment is not surprising, since the president's reading of the 14th Amendment contradicts its text and history, plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent.
A critical review of a new book on history and originalism.
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.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
Trump fired Federal Trade Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in March. Yesterday he gave up his claim to the job, but he's still challenging the White House's right to dismiss him.
The participants were Amanda Shanor (Univ. of Pennsylvania), Alan Trammell (Washington and Lee), Wilfred Codrington, III (Cardozo), and myself.
Stephen Miller's understanding of the Constitution is dubious for several reasons.
The Trump-appointed judge found that the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act "exceeds the scope of the statute and is contrary to the plain, ordinary meaning of the statute's terms."
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president's imposition of tariffs, a lawsuit alleges.
A response to Joel Alicea on whether originalism needs a moral defense.
The removals challenge Humphrey’s Executor, a Supreme Court precedent that protects independent agency officials from political firings.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish emphasizes that religious freedom must protect "unpopular or unfamiliar religious groups" as well as "popular or familiar ones."
The president says those legislators are "subject to investigation at the highest level," notwithstanding their pardons and the Speech or Debate Clause.
Threats to impeach federal judges who rule against the government are a naked attack on their constitutionally crucial function.
President Donald Trump has begun kicking immigrant “Hamas sympathizers” out of the U.S.
Most courts have ruled that vanity license plates are private speech and protected from viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
The law is wasteful and protectionist. Now, a new lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional too.
Georgetown constitutional law professor Randy Barnett discusses the legality of DOGE, Trump's executive orders, and birthright citizenship.
His position is grounded in concerns about the separation of powers that presidents of both major parties have raised for many years.
Federal judges in Washington and Maryland say the president's attack on birthright citizenship flouts the 14th Amendment and 127 years of judicial precedent.
New historical evidence on the ERA's invalidity.
Biden announced today that the Equal Rights Amendment is the "law of the land," but the Justice Department and the national archivist disagree.
A deeply mistaken decision on the way out of office.
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence v. The School Committee for the City of Boston is bad news for equality under the law.
The executive order that the president-elect plans to issue contradicts the historical understanding of the 14th Amendment.
Why constitutional theory needs more theory.
Washington's Covenant Homeownership Program excludes certain applicants on the basis of race.
The symposium includes contributions by many prominent legal scholars. I am among the contributors.
The Minority Teachers for Illinois Scholarship Program is blatantly unconstitutional.
A forthcoming paper from a Justice on the Ohio Supreme Court on constitutional interpretation in Ohio.
Judge Joseph Bianco’s decision emphasizes that constitutional rights and protections belong to individuals, not groups.
"In short, 'cruel and unusual' is not the same as 'harmful and unfair,'" the court wrote.
Chevron deference, a doctrine created by the Court in 1984, gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the meaning of various laws. But the justices may overturn that.
Fourth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
Third in a seris of guest-blogging posts.
Second in a series of guest-blogging posts.
First in a series of guest-blogging posts.
The book argues that the structural elements of the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that empowers the federal government to address collective action problems facing the states.
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
