In the Case That Blocked OSHA's Vaccine Mandate, the Justices Disagreed About When COVID-19 Counts As a Workplace Hazard
The crux of the argument is the distinction "between occupational risk and risk more generally."
The crux of the argument is the distinction "between occupational risk and risk more generally."
The panel rejects the argument that the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act allows the federal government to require vaccination for nearly one-fifth of the American workforce.
The octogenarian columnist has a lot to say about happiness and history in the United States.
A new bill would transfer the review of petitions from the Justice Department to a presidentially appointed board.
Will the Supreme Court step in?
Two federal district courts have now ruled against the mandate for federal contractors.
In denying the former president's claims of executive privilege, a federal judge sets a blueprint which should apply to sitting presidents as well.
A panel of the court will hear Trump’s challenge to the release of material on an expedited basis.
In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court rejects the former President's efforts to prevent the release of information by the National Archives to the January 6 Committee.
Congress prepares to assert its investigative authority.
The history isn’t unambiguous, but it leans toward expanding impeachment beyond criminal offenses.
History supports neither the plenary presidential power advocated by some nor the complete congressional dominance advocated by others.
A revival of the nondelegation doctrine isn’t likely to massively retrench either the scope of the regulatory state or the president’s ability to steer agency discretion.
Behind the technicalities of the appointment and removal power is a difficult tradeoff between democratic accountability and impartiality in implementing laws.
Political polarization inevitably warps our views of presidential actions, making an even-handed approach all the more crucial.
The expulsions, ordered by the CDC for the supposed purpose of stopping the spread of Covid-19, are illegal for much the same reasons as was the CDC eviction moratorium recently struck down by the Supreme Court.
A broad standard with no exceptions better serves his goals, but it will be harder to defend in court.
The presidency has always been inclined to unilateral power—and many Americans like it that way.
Some parts are both good policy and legally unproblematic. Others - particularly the mandate imposed on private employers - are legally dubious and would set a dangerous precedent if upheld by courts.
OSHA has rarely used this option, which avoids the usual rule-making process, and most challenges to such edicts have been successful.
Emergency OSHA rules are frequently struck down by courts.
Plus: The vaccine and abortion debates, a promising jobs report, and more...
Biden's sudden embrace of a federal vaccine requirement seems inconsistent with his acknowledgment that he cannot mandate every COVID-19 precaution he'd like people to follow.
Yale Law School Prof. Cristina Rodriguez and I discussed this timely subject with host Stephen Henderson.
The president seems determined to anoint the agency’s director as the nation’s COVID-19 dictator, no matter what the law says.
This outcome was widely expected by legal commentators.
The administration issued the order even while conceding that it lacked the authority to do so.
Plus: The FBI had at least a dozen informants helping put together the plot to kidnap Michigan's governor, price controls fail again, and more.
It could, if it actually had the vast public health powers that the Biden administration claims it does.
New York's new law seems to conflict with a federal statute that protects manufacturers and dealers from liability for gun crimes.
Repealing the law that allowed America to depose Saddam Hussein won't stop us from waging war elsewhere.
The COVID-19 pandemic showed the dangers of letting governors unilaterally, dramatically, and indefinitely magnify their own powers.
The resolution is part of a broader movement to rein in executive power during emergencies.
The state is scheduled to ease its lockdowns on June 15. But Newsom still wants the power to control the terms.
Voters in Pittsburgh banned no-knock police raids and solitary confinement too.
The online event features panels on a wide range of issues related to executive power, including one on federalism where I will be one of the participants.
This is the conclusion of the Yale Journal on Regulation symposium about the book.
The president's unilateral restrictions are legally dubious and unlikely to "save lives."
Contributors include a variety of legal scholars, including, Jessica Bulman-Pozen, Dan Farber, and myself, among others.
The new order is similar to the old, but includes an extensive section defending the measure on public health grounds.
Stanford University's Terry Moe and the Cato Institute's Gene Healy debate giving fast-track authority to U.S. presidents.
A Soho Forum debate on expanding or restricting presidential powers.
I argue that the recent air strike was legal, but overall US military intervention in Syria still lacks required congressional authorization. Biden may be trying to change that; but history gives reason for skepticism.
This initiative might help restore congressional control over war authorization. But there is reason for skepticism that it will pan out.
The strike was probably legal (as were similar small-scale strikes by Trump). But there are serious constitutional problems with the overall US military presence in Syria.
Two district court decisions have upheld the moratorium against various challenges, while one has ruled against it. The legal battle may be just beginning.
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