Abolish the Commerce Department
Donald Trump has tabbed Howard Lutnick to be the next secretary of the Department of Commerce. He should also be the last.
Donald Trump has tabbed Howard Lutnick to be the next secretary of the Department of Commerce. He should also be the last.
Brendan Carr’s plans for "reining in Big Tech" are a threat to limited government, free speech, free markets, and the rule of law.
Berry explains why the plan is flawed on legal and other grounds.
Congress needs to reassert its powers and bring the imperial presidency back down to earth.
The justices, including Trump's nominees, have shown they are willing to defy his will when they think the law requires it.
In his second term, the former and future president will have more freedom to follow his worst instincts.
The Republican presidential candidate’s views do not reflect any unifying principle other than self-interest.
Legal scholar Michael Ramsey points out another way courts could reject Trump's plan to use the act as a tool for peacetime mass deportation.
How U.S. presidents habitually use—and abuse—pronouns to deceive.
The plan is illegal. But courts might refuse to strike it down based on the "political questions" doctrine.
It's fundamentally different from what Republicans have tried to do, but similar enough to be worrisome.
A successful appointments clause challenge to Regional Fishery Management Councils. (Updated to fix block quotes)
Donald Trump's plan for massive tariff increases is particularly dangerous because the White House could likely implement it without any new congressional authorization.
Max Boot's biography of Ronald Reagan is deeply researched and informative, but it sometimes stumbles when it tries to use the past to make sense of the present.
The Supreme Court is considering whether a rule targeting "ghost guns" exceeds the agency's statutory authority.
Contrary to public desires, the presidency should be far less powerful.
The former president's attempts to put a positive spin on the term are consistent with his alarmingly authoritarian instincts.
Will the liars and hacks who covered up Biden's cognitive decline face any consequences?
Reflections on that Twitter dust-up.
The revised indicment is intended to address the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling in Trump v. United States.
In charging the former president with illegal election interference, Special Counsel Jack Smith emphasizes the defendant's personal motivation and private means.
The lawsuit deserves to lose. But it may well lead to a prolonged legal battle.
The 2024 Democratic platform devotes five paragraphs to firearm restrictions but does not even allude to the Second Amendment.
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton bring millenarianism—and messianism—back.
The presumptive Democratic nominee has a more liberal drug policy record than both the president and the Republican presidential nominee.
Plus: A listener asks the editors if employers should be held responsible for the speech and actions of employees outside of the workplace.
Voters should not dismiss the former president's utter disregard for the truth as a personal quirk or standard political practice.
After facing weeks of falling poll numbers and pressure from fellow Democrats and liberal donors, Biden ended his reelection campaign. He subsequently endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris.
Reason's Zach Weissmueller talked with Trump supporters at the Republican National Convention about heated rhetoric, the weaponization of government, and plans for unity.
There’s less reason to fight when one-size-fits-all policies are replaced with local diversity.
We need not conjure "extreme hypotheticals" to understand the danger posed by an "energetic executive" who feels free to flout the law.
I was one of the participants, along with many other legal scholars.
We've now had two consecutive presidential administrations deploy versions of this same argument in response to questions about the fitness of the man allegedly running the federal government.
The Supreme Court's flawed decision largely ignores text and original meaning, and fails to resolve crucial issues.
There is no textual basis for "immunity" as such, but there are structural reasons why some degree of insulation is inevitable.
A thoughtful, sober take on Trump v. United States.
Contrary to progressive criticism, curtailing bureaucratic power is not about protecting "the wealthy and powerful."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says these cases will "devastate" the regulatory state. Good.
By requiring "absolute" immunity for some "official acts" and "presumptive" immunity for others, the justices cast doubt on the viability of Donald Trump's election interference prosecution.
The Supreme Court's recent rulings limiting the powers of the administrative state are a blessing for liberals who might not control the White House for much longer.
It won't end the administrative state or even significantly reduce the amount of federal regulation. But it's still a valuable step towards protecting the rule of law and curbing executive power.
The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law allows or requires.
The decision rejects a system in which the agency imposes civil penalties after investigating people and validating its own allegations.
The candidate who grasps the gravity of this situation and proposes concrete steps to address it will demonstrate the leadership our nation now desperately needs. The stakes couldn't be higher.
Both rulings were by Democratic-appointed judges - a result that bodes ill for the plan's future.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.
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.
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.