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
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.
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
