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.
The president and his predecessor both tried to impose gun control by executive fiat.
Critics claim the doctrine is obviously at odds with textualism. But that isn't the case.
The Supreme Court considers the scope of presidential power in Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.
Plus: Texas prosecutors can't criminally charge people who help others access out-of-state abortions, food trucks fight rules banning them in 96 percent of North Carolina city, and more...
Like his predecessors, the current president ignores the law when it suits him.
While the office was created with "modest authority and limited responsibilities," the modern president has increasingly unchecked power and authority.
The move makes it more likely that Title 42 expulsions of migrants will end in the near future.
Legal scholar Michael Dorf claims Supreme Court should rule on this basis. But the doctrine doesn't apply to this case, and is dubious anyway.
The White House's idea of using Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to adopt rent control faces numerous legal and practical hurdles.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concludes the President exceeded the scope of his delegated authority.
The decision defends the separation of powers and the rule of law against an attempt to prohibit firearm accessories by administrative fiat.
In this Federalist Society podcast on a major immigration case currently before the Supreme Court, I go over the issues at stake, and make some tentative predictions about the case's likely outcome.
Like the first case, it will be argued in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked.
This post covers significant developments in cases challenging Biden's loan-forgiveness plan other than the one Supreme Court has decided to hear.
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
