The Alarming Implications of Trump's Immunity Claim
The Supreme Court will decide whether former presidents can avoid criminal prosecution by avoiding impeachment and removal.
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.
Qualified immunity is a badly flawed doctrine the Supreme Court should abolish. But Trump's demands are much more extreme.
Republican Presidential Nomination
Plus: Javier Milei’s powerful speech on economic prosperity in Davos
The former president argues that accountability is the enemy of effectiveness, both for cops and for politicians.
Excessive judicial deference gives administrative agencies a license to rewrite the law in their favor.
The answer is likely "no" for US military action so far, because it is a defense against attack. But a broader conflict or one of much longer duration would be different.
Step 1: Become president. That's the hardest part.
As one appeals court judge pointed out, Trump's defense could literally let a president get away with murder.
The reason is a combination of the general structure of our legal system and the original meaning of Section 3.
His lawyers say no jury can ever consider charges based on his "official acts" as president, which include his efforts to reverse Joe Biden's election.
Plus: A listener asks the editors to consider the libertarian argument against shopping local.
The Trump administration’s unilateral ban on bump stocks turned owners of those rifle accessories into felons.
The governor's attempt to rule by decree provoked widespread condemnation instead of the applause she was expecting.
"He said, you strike, you're fired. Simple concept to me. To the extent that we can use that once again, absolutely."
The former president suggests he was not obliged to obey a subpoena seeking classified records.
New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham thinks violent crime gives her a license to rule by decree.
While there is some genuine politicization, it is not as great as often claimed. Proposals to undermine judicial review could easily end up empowering the very sort of authoritarian president progressives fear.
Survey data casts doubt on the textualist rationale for the major questions doctrine that I and others have advanced. But perhaps not as much doubt as it might seem.
It has many good points. But I have some reservations and questions.
The Court unanimously ruled the plaintiffs in that case lacked standing. But they might end up getting what they wanted more fully than anyone else involved in the legal battle over student loan forgiveness.
The article goes over the main reasons why the Court's decision was justified.
The administration will try this pathway as an alternative to the HEROES Act of 2003, which pathway was shut down by today's Supreme Court decision.
The 8-1 decision is a major win for Biden and executive enforcement discretion. I think the Court got the right result, but for the wrong reasons.
By taking records that did not belong to him and refusing to return them, William Barr says, Trump "provoked this whole problem himself."
The real banana republic danger is if high officials can commit serious crimes with impunity.
Legislators from both parties worry about unilateral power, but they use it when it’s convenient.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch highlights a vital lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The former president reminds us that claiming unbridled executive power is a bipartisan tendency.
The stay is only temporary, and could be quickly lifted. But it's still a negative sign for the plaintiffs in the case.
The papers are for an upcoming conference on the topic of whether federal agency adjudication of private rights should be curbed or ended. There is a $2500 honorarium for authors of selected papers.
The former president says he did not solicit election fraud; he merely tried to correct a "rigged" election. And he says he did not illegally retain government records, because they were his property.
Under Walensky, the CDC's voluntary guidance was anything but.
Overruling Chevron won't gut the administrative state or even severely constrain it. But it could help strengthen the rule of law.
Legal scholar Ilan Wurman argues the controversial doctrine is justifiable on textualist and linguistic grounds.
The president wants to redefine federally licensed gun dealers in service of an ineffective anti-crime strategy.
(You don't really have to shut up, but here's my money.)
Yes, I'll donate to Reason right now! I'll keep my money today, thanksReason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksHelp 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 thanksReason is the antidote to the same old stale take on ideas that actually matter to me.
I’ll support Free Minds and Free Markets! Not interestedReason pushes me to think critically with facts and analysis that shape my perspective and amplify the ideas I care about.
I want to make a donation so that my voice can be heard! Not todayEvery 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 interestedIt’s hard to trust the media these days, especially when everyone is pushing a partisan agenda. Reason stands for my right to make my own choices.
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No, I’ll follow the partisan herdReason’s fearless, principled journalism keeps me sane in a crazy world.
Making a donation to Reason right now will keep me from losing my mind! No, I like being madSo 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 thanksSupport the voices that advocate for your freedom. Donate to Reason today!
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today