D.C. Circuit Upholds Presidential Removal of MSPB and NLRB Members
On the eve of Trump v. Slaughter, the D.C. Circuit offers a way to distinguish Humphrey's Executor.
On the eve of Trump v. Slaughter, the D.C. Circuit offers a way to distinguish Humphrey's Executor.
The Circuit's decision appears to invite the workaround of dividing responsibilities between two persons in the U.S. Attorney's Office, who could then each exercise half of that Office's powers.
The first appellate court to consider the Trump Administration's aggressive approach to U.S. Attorney appointments.
NRO's Andrew McCarthy on why strike on defenseless survivors of strike on drug boat was "at best, a war crime under federal law."
The president loves freeing people. His controversial clemency grants should not obscure the fact that the pardon power is incredibly important.
The president’s reaction to a supposedly "seditious" video illustrates his tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime.
A new biography presents Franklin Roosevelt as one of the greatest scoundrels of American political history.
By looking to the past, Democrats could chart a pro-freedom blueprint for their party’s future.
Now, under Johnson's leadership, the House has changed its rules to make it even harder for lawmakers to signal their opposition to Trump's tariffs.
Blowing up boats won’t stop drugs—but it could sink Trump.
Sen. Rand Paul explains why he wants the Epstein files released, lays out his case against Trump’s tariffs and military strikes in Venezuela, and argues that he and Rep. Thomas Massie are the last voices in Congress still committed to libertarian ideals.
Trump's decision to reduce the tariffs on Swiss goods came just days after a Swiss delegation lavished the president with a variety of expensive gifts.
They say a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. But failing to get indictments has been a hallmark of the second Trump administration.
Since long before Biden and Trump, presidents have been going to great lengths to keep their medical problems from the public.
The Trump administration's claims that illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion" or a "predatory incursion" under the Alien Enemies Act go against the major questions doctrine.
The decision is consistent with the president's avowed concerns about "overcriminalization in federal regulations."
For the justices, the question is just how much deference the president deserves.
Donald Trump’s new stock-buying strategy isn’t socialism, but it is a step toward a government-controlled economy.
Plus: Outrage at Heritage, air traffic might get throttled, and more...
Trade deficits are not a "national emergency," and the president's import taxes won’t reduce them.
The former vice president liked being compared to the supervillain as a joke. But he had seriously villainous effects on millions of people in real life.
Learning Resources v. Trump will test both executive power and judicial fidelity.
"The Trump Administration's Department of War gave me an ultimatum: call up your troops, or we will," Gov. J.B. Pritzker said.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in November on whether Trump's use of tariffs is constitutional.
As of mid-2025, there were roughly 50 simultaneous national emergencies in force.
The president bet that no one would stop him from land attacks in Venezuela. And Congress hasn’t given him any reason to think otherwise.
Trump’s presidency may have amplified executive power, but unless lawmakers roll back those powers—and the bloated government behind them—the next administration will do the same.
Long-ago debates about executive authority are not as distant as they might initially seem.
The decision “erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights,” Judge Susan P. Graber warned in her dissent.
The potential for deadly error underlines the lawlessness of the president’s bloodthirsty anti-drug strategy.
Will the Supreme Court grant Trump the overwhelming judicial deference he demands?
Plus: the “No Kings” protests, Trump pays troop salaries during government shutdown, and the continued bombing of drug boats in Venezuela
The correct answer is: Yes, even when they are also regulations. Whether the Court agrees could determine the future of presidential power.
The Court of Appeals unanimously refused to stay a trial court ruling against Trump, signaling the judges believe his use of the Guard is illegal.
Until now, the president concedes, interdiction has been "totally ineffective." Blowing up drug boats won't change that reality.
This is the second lawsuit challenging the policy, which is both illegal and likely to cause great harm if allowed to stand.
We’ll take less government however we can get it.
A guest post by Joshua Braver and John Dehn.
If the courts try to enforce legal limits on the president's military deployments, he can resort to an alarmingly broad statute that gives him more discretion.
Federal troops are also ill-suited to handle local policing issues.
As Illinois resists the federal immigration blitz, the Trump administration ups the ante on authoritarian rhetoric.
The federal government can't even pass a budget. What's it doing buying a mine?
Shadowy deals and unilateral powers created Florida's notorious immigration detention camp.
In a new Supreme Court term packed with big cases, these disputes stand out.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut concluded that the president's description of "War ravaged Portland" was "simply untethered to the facts."
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