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.
In the meantime, the justices left in place a lower court injunction against the plan. That probably doesn't bode well for the Biden Administration's chances of winning.
The Supreme Court's resolution of this procedural issue may be a preview of the justices' views on the ultimate resolution of the student loan forgiveness litigation.
According to the former president's lawyers, his decision to retain the documents made them "personal."
The decision overrules a trial court ruling and likely paves the way for a decision on the merits striking down the program.
Participants include Daniel Farber, Keith Whittington, Cristina Rodriguez, Lisa Heinzerling, and myself, among others.
The lack of statutory authority is the main issue raised by legal challenges to the plan.
The proposals were agreed on by members of the conservative, libertarian, and progressive teams participating in the NCC's earlier constitution drafting project.
The lawsuit has a more conventional - and stronger - basis for standing than that filed yesterday by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
It was filed by Pacific Legal Foundation public interest lawyer Frank Garrison, and includes a novel strategy for getting around the problem of standing.
Gov. Jay Inslee says Washington state's COVID-19 emergency will finally come to an end on October 31.
Relying on Section 432(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as some propose, has many of the same flaws as the Administration's emergency powers theory.
The president claims broad authority to act under a post-9/11 law.
Plus: Spider study sheds light on how misinformation spreads, Airbnb regulation ruled unconstitutional, and more...
It is hard to see how, given the contortions required to deliver the unilateral prohibition that Donald Trump demanded.
I am one of the relatively few people who think the Court got both cases right.
Regulators imposed the ban based on a highly implausible and counterintuitive reading of federal law.
Implementing policy is supposed to be difficult given that it could affect millions of people’s lives.
The "waiver" opens the door for Bannon to testify before the congressional January 6 Committee. But former presidents are not entitled to executive privilege, and especially not when it comes to testimony by private citizens.
The ruling likely allows end of a cruel policy - but also reinforces broad presidential control over immigration.
If home insulation is a "critical technology item essential to the national defense," then what isn't?
A compendium of my writings defending the morality and legality of this program - but also warning that it remains imperiled unless and until Congress passes a law institutionalizing it.
Like AUMFs before it, Rep. Adam Kinzinger’s proposed authorization would lead to less transparency in conflicts and more unilateral decision making.
Life is returning to "normal" after two years, but that normal includes even fewer limits on executive powers.
The eviction moratorium and Title 42 "public health" expulsion cases have many parallels that may have been ignored because of their differing ideological valence. Both strengthen the case for nondeferential judicial review of the exercise of emergency powers.
Someone might want to remind them that Democrats have a majority in both congressional chambers.
Then why even have a legislature?
The New York State Supreme Court ruled that Governor Hochul and the health commissioner did not have the authority to mandate a masking requirement
Starbucks has decided the vaccine mandate isn't good for their business
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
