The Appointments Clause Goes Fishing
A successful appointments clause challenge to Regional Fishery Management Councils. (Updated to fix block quotes)
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.
It's a good policy, authorized by the law. But it will likely face lawsuits, nonetheless, potentially leading to a prolonged legal battle.
Six justices agreed that federal regulators had misconstrued the statutory definition of a machine gun.
The decision allows the lawsuit to proceed, albeit with fewer plaintiffs.
Fifth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
Fourth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
I cover both liberal immigration sanctuaries and conservative gun sanctuaries, and the more general principles behind them.
Most of the justices seem skeptical of granting Donald Trump complete immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts."
The Supreme Court will decide whether former presidents can avoid criminal prosecution by avoiding impeachment and removal.
The modern presidency is a divider, not a uniter. It has become far too powerful to be anything else.
An interesting amicus brief urges the justices not to rely upon penumbras and emanations in construing the scope of Presidential immunity.
Joe Biden is the latest of a string of presidents to deny Congress its rightful role in war making.
The modern presidency is a divider, not a uniter. It has become far too powerful to be anything else.
Yet another case that Justice Kavanaugh would like to hear that does not interest enough of his colleagues.
The pandemic showed that America's founders were right to create a system of checks and balances that made it hard for leaders to easily have their way.
Several justices seemed troubled by an ATF rule that purports to ban bump stocks by reinterpreting the federal definition of machine guns.
His lawyers assert presidential immunity and discretion, criticize an "unconstitutionally vague" statute, and question the special counsel's legal status.
The appeals court says it "cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."
A watchdog group cites ATF "whistleblowers" who describe a proposed policy that would be plainly inconsistent with federal law.
Under the Controlled Substances Act, the agency does not have the discretion to "deschedule marijuana altogether."
Should there be any limits to a president's power to centrally plan the economy? Apparently not.
His understanding of effective leadership and policing should repel anyone who cares about civil liberties and the rule of law.
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