Colorado's governor agreed with a state appeals court that the former Mesa County clerk had been punished for her wacky beliefs about the 2020 election as well as her illegal conduct.
Videos of my presentation and interview on this topic at a major Italian university.
Nominees include stories on America's gerontocracy, the war on chocolate, how Texas beat California on housing, and more.
The 2-1 decision concludes Trump's massive new tariffs are illegal because there is no "balance of payments deficit" of the kind needed to authorize them.
The fiscal objection is serious. But the deeper problem is that the proposal misunderstands the saving behavior of the households it aims to help.
From immigration and guns to executive power, transgender athletes, and mail-in ballots, these are the Supreme Court cases to watch out for in May and June.
Angst, guilt, and more self-awareness than you might expect
Congress hasn't voted to declare war since 1942, yet the legislative branch constantly refuses to rein in presidents.
It limits executive power grabs in this field, as well as others.
Legally, Trump must either cease operations or ask Congress for approval. He did neither, and Congress just went on recess.
Cole Tomas Allen's actions just don't make sense, even in his own words, or in a time of political polarization.
Conservative legal commentator Gregg Nunziata outlines reasons why conservatives should reject broad views of executive power.
"The New Deal made investment in America a risky project," says economist Donald J. Boudreaux, author of The Triumph of Economic Freedom.
Democrats can't muster the votes to impeach and remove Trump, or even to stop an illegal war. The 25th Amendment would be even more difficult.
Plus: ship seizures, the best free bread in America, and more...
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 plan is not completely terrible. But many importers may still have difficulty getting the refund money owed to them.
The outcome is unclear. But the judges seemed skeptical of the Trump Administration's claims that Section 122 grants them sweeping tariff powers.
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 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.
I submitted the brief on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
The Administration's constitutional arguments are unconvincing, but rejecting them is not necessary to decide United States v. Barbara
"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
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.
There are far too few checks left on executive power.
A new book revisits this 50-year-old Watergate report as President Donald Trump pursues his own politically motivated investigations.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara.
The Trump administration keeps trying to find legal loopholes, but the will of the people is the final judge of any major policy.
There was little rhyme or reason to the president's "emergency" tariffs, which fluctuated wildly depending on his mood.
The bill would not only codify Trump's actions into law, it would establish a framework for both this and future administrations to do it too.
Rather than debating over who should fill the role, Congress and the White House should just eliminate it altogether.
A war by any other name must still be authorized by Congress.
Plus: a pause on power plant bombing, an executive order to fund the TSA, a tentative plan to end the DHS shutdown, and more…
From Korea to Iran, the United States has employed countless euphemisms that not only obscure the true nature of its wars but also the constitutional limits designed to constrain them.
His work further demonstrates that the AEA cannot be used in response to illegal migration or drug smuggling, but only when there is a military attack.
The president’s invocation of Section 122 conflates a trade deficit with a balance-of-payments deficit.
LJC is the group with which I worked on the IEEPA tariff case decided by the Supreme Court.
A sad commentary on the sprawling size and eye-watering cost of the government.
The massive new tariffs are illegal, just like the IEEPA tariffs previously invalidated by the Supreme Court.
The article explains why the war requires congressional authorization,and why this requirement is important.
The Court's law-declaration approach not only departs from its dispute-resolution premise but risks yielding a faulty product.
Importantly, the Court ordered payment of refunds even to those businesses who have not filed a lawsuit to claim them.
The "three buckets" picture of the federal government, in combination with the unitary executive thesis, gives extravagant power to the President.
In the "three buckets" picture of the structure of the federal government, a federal entity that is not part of Congress or part of the judiciary must inevitably be in the Executive Branch.
Trump's attack on Iran is obviously unconstitutional. The moral and policy issues are a closer call.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks