The Federal Workforce Will Be a Little Smaller After the Government Shutdown Ends
We’ll take less government however we can get it.
We’ll take less government however we can get it.
A guest post by Joshua Braver and John Dehn.
If the courts try to enforce legal limits on the president's military deployments, he can resort to an alarmingly broad statute that gives him more discretion.
Federal troops are also ill-suited to handle local policing issues.
As Illinois resists the federal immigration blitz, the Trump administration ups the ante on authoritarian rhetoric.
The federal government can't even pass a budget. What's it doing buying a mine?
Shadowy deals and unilateral powers created Florida's notorious immigration detention camp.
In a new Supreme Court term packed with big cases, these disputes stand out.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut concluded that the president's description of "War ravaged Portland" was "simply untethered to the facts."
The case was filed yesterday by a broad coalition of different groups, including a health care provider, education groups, religious organizations, and labor unions.
The president thinks he can transform murder into self-defense by executive fiat.
The Trump administration has already claimed the power to raise taxes without congressional approval. Now it is going to spend money that way too.
It will review a panel decision holding that Trump could not invoke this sweeping wartime authority by claiming illegal migration and drug smuggling qualify as an "invasion."
Which version of the chief justice will emerge in the Supreme Court’s newest term?
The prominent originalist legal scholar argues the Constitution does not require that the president have the power to fire executive branch officials.
Federal officers policing Washington, D.C., on Trump's orders appear to be driving crime down, but the plan is neither constitutionally sound nor viable in the long term.
Plus: the Comey indictment, Trump deploys the National Guard to Portland, Eric Adams exits New York City's mayoral race, and a listener asks about cyclical theories of history
The order lists "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity" as common threads among "domestic terrorists," though all are protected by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court will soon review the president’s authority to fire “independent” agency heads.
In her new book, 107 Days, the former vice president reminds us that she is ever the prosecutor.
Congress placed the term in the law but chose not to define it, leaving that task for future regulators.
The president’s attempt to evade the major questions doctrine deserves to be rejected.
The plan violates the relevant visa law. If allowed to stand, it would significantly harm productivity and innovation.
Plus: Pam Bondi flunks free speech 101.
Whether he is waging the drug war, imposing tariffs, deporting alleged gang members, or fighting crime, the president thinks he can do "anything I want to do."
The president's new approach to drug law enforcement represents a stark departure from military norms and criminal justice principles.
Equating drug trafficking with armed aggression, the president asserts the authority to kill anyone he perceives as a threat to "our most vital national interests."
With Congress essentially AWOL, the courts offer the only real check on presidential power.
A billion-dollar rebrand won’t change the fact that defense hasn’t meant defense in decades.
The same legal theory that tripped up Joe Biden's student loan scheme could also sink Donald Trump's tariffs.
Killing suspected drug traffickers is both unjust and illegal. And it could be the start of an effort to turn the already awful War on Drugs into something more like a real war, thereby making it even worse.
Plus: A momentous date in the life of Frederick Douglass
The 2-1 ruling is in line with most previous court decisions on Trump's invocation of the AEA. Judge Oldham wrote an extremely long, but significantly flawed, dissent.
The appeals court blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under that law "because we find no invasion or predatory incursion."
Plus: Bombing "narco-terrorists" in the Caribbean, American manufacturing shrinks for the sixth consecutive month, Massie wants the Epstein files, and more...
Donald Trump's claim that the appeals court ruled against him for partisan or ideological reasons is hard to take seriously.
"The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity," the Supreme Court wrote in a ruling this year.
Seven judges agreed that the president's assertion of unlimited authority to tax imports is illegal and unconstitutional.
In a 7-4 ruling, the en banc court upheld trial court ruling against all the challenged tariffs. The scope of the injunction against them remains to be determined.
Congress holds the power of the purse in our system of government, and further eroding congressional responsibility for spending decisions will not end well.
Or will the justices say that Trump fired her for illegal reasons?
The president's plan to promote public safety by deploying troops in cities across the country is hard to reconcile with constitutional constraints on federal authority.
The use of government force to achieve political advantage is dangerous and sets a bad precedent.
Most voters support submitting ballots by mail, and also voter ID.
Donald Trump is no stranger to wasteful spending. But these examples are especially egregious.
The 2016 brief defended the understanding of the 14th Amendment that the president wants to overturn.
The Court concludes that limitations on the removal of NLRB Board members and NLRB administrative law judges are both unconstitutional.
Help 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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks