Justice Kagan on Universal Injunctions in 2022
Justice Kagan said "it just can't be right" that a single court judge can stop a federal policy in its tracks nationwide.
Justice Kagan said "it just can't be right" that a single court judge can stop a federal policy in its tracks nationwide.
Other than the Chief, Justice Kagan wrote the fewest opinions.
Justice Barrett writes for the Court's majority that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable power of federal courts.
Plus: The Supreme Court upholds a state ban on transgender care for minors.
The Court's majority avoids the larger question of whether laws targeting transgender individuals should be subject to heightened scrutiny, but Justice Barrett did not.
Perceptions of Amy Coney Barrett may have changed more than her jurisprudence or voting record.
The Senate has adopted its own version of a provision designed to limit preliminary injunctions against the federal government when no bond is posted.
My contribution to an interdisciplinary symposium on "Donald J. Trump, the Supreme Court, and American Constitutionalism"
Professor Joel Alicea on how to understand what may be the most important jurisprudential divisions on the Supreme Court.
Unanimous rulings on discrimination, guns, and religion once again challenge the common media narrative that the Court is hopelessly polarized.
The MAGA loyalty that Trump demands is anathema to everything that originalism is supposed to be about.
Claims that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is at the center for the Court are not supported by the data. The truth is more complicated.
This question can be informed by more than anecdote and intuition.
Is it a problem if a provision requires judges to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
The Maine legislature has sought to silence and disenfranchise one of its members due to objections to things she said.
The Chief Justice is more consistent than his critics, left and right.
The late justice was appointed by a Republican but quickly established himself as a judicial liberal.
How the phrase ended up in an opinion after it had been omitted.
A FOIA lawsuit that seeks executive branch control over the Judicial Conference of the United States and Administrative Office of the United States.
President Trump's first judicial nomination of his second term clerked for Justices Alito and Barrett (and then-Judge Kavanaugh)
A statutory interpretation case, involving national emergencies, splits the justices in an unusual way.
An unconstitutional act is still unconstitutional even if lots of people support it.
Plus: A listener asks why some American libertarians seem to unquestioningly accept everything Vladimir Putin says.
To justify the immediate deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members, the president is invoking a rarely used statute that does not seem to apply in this context.
"Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts noted after Trump said federal judges who impede his agenda should be fired.
In 2020, the Chief Justice condemned Senator Schumer's "dangerous" remarks.
Threats to impeach federal judges who rule against the government are a naked attack on their constitutionally crucial function.
The Judicial Conference again asks Congress to create more judicial seats to address judicial backlogs.
Why is the Supreme Court issuing fewer summary reversals? Is Justice Barrett the reason?
The administration may be moving in that direction. If it does so and gets away with it, the consequences are likely to be dire.
Suggestions that the Executive Branch Ignore Federal Court Rulings May Look Different Today than When They Were Proposed.
"I know they are guilty," otherwise "they would not be in front of me," said town justice Richard Snyder, who resigned in December.
A dissent from the denial of certiorari in another Sixth Circuit Habeas case.
A good example of why the D.C. Circuit's website upgrade was actually a step backwards.
Roberts identifies genuine problems, but little in the way of good solutions. He also sometimes overlooks ways in which the Supreme Court is partly responsible for the challenges the judiciary faces.
It is apparently unacceptable that some of the new judges would be appointed by a Republican.
There was bipartisan support for the JUDGES Act, but the election results appear to have changed that.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reminds us that there are limits to Article III.
Donald Trump will have at least one less federal district court vacancy to fill.
He’ll be around to protect our freedom for a few more years.
A recent website "upgrade" is not an improvement.
Another interesting aside in the Royal Canin oral argument.
An amusing and potentially revealing exchange in a recent oral argument.
Remembering the first time a partisan Senate minority blocked a judicial nomination that enjoyed majority support.
A panel examining what is in store for October Term 2024.
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