Joe and Russell Marino will finally get their day in court. The ruling represents a turning of the tide when it comes to the fairness of such proceedings, where agencies have long played both prosecutor and jury.
The right to a civil jury trial is far more deeply rooted in American history and tradition than is the right to own guns, which the Supreme Court was right to incorporate.
The case against Michelino Sunseri exemplifies the injustice caused by the proliferation of regulatory crimes—the target of a recent presidential order.
John Moore and Tanner Mansell were convicted of theft after they freed sharks they erroneously thought had been caught illegally.
Retired Judge Gertner and I have filed an amicus brief in support of certiorari to answer the question, which has important important implications for admiralty jurisdiction.
Federal prosecutors argued that John Moore and Tanner Mansell stole property when they hauled in a fishing line they mistakenly believed had been set by poachers.
Thus far, the courts have barred Curtrina Martin from asking a jury for damages. She is appealing to the Supreme Court.
In a new book, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch describes the "human toll" of proliferating criminal penalties.
Contrary to progressive criticism, curtailing bureaucratic power is not about protecting "the wealthy and powerful."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way.
The decision rejects a system in which the agency imposes civil penalties after investigating people and validating its own allegations.
Paul Erlinger was sentenced to 15 years in prison based largely on a determination made by a judge—not a jury.
The Sixth Amendment was originally seen as vital to preserving liberty. Yet it has been consistently watered down.
School officials falsely accused the boys of posing for a photo in blackface.
Philip Esformes was sentenced for charges on which a jury hung. After receiving a commutation, the federal government vowed to try to put him back in prison.
SpaceX argues the federal agency trying to punish it for firing employees critical of Musk is itself unconstitutional.
Trials are incredibly valuable fact-finding tools—particularly when the defendants are public employees.
Plus: New York City's crackdown on short-term rentals, Brazil's UFO investigations, and more...
Florida will now only require an 8–4 majority for a jury to recommend a death sentence. Alabama is the only other state that allows split juries to recommend death sentences.
"We can't be in a situation where one person can just derail this," DeSantis told a gathering of law enforcement officials.
Oregon was one of only two states that allowed for non-unanimous guilty verdicts until the Supreme Court outlawed them in 2020.
Unfortunately, in five separate cases today, they're outnumbered.
Convincing evidence of his innocence has been available for years. But the criminal legal system prioritizes procedure and bureaucracy over liberty.
The Supreme Court may soon consider if acquitted conduct sentencing is illegal.
A former guidance counselor served six years of a 25-year sentence thanks to a public defender's incompetence.
Third post in the symposium on the National Constitution Center "Restoring the Guardrails of Democracy" project. Walter Olson presents the Team Libertarian Report.
Michael Picard's free speech rights were violated when he was booked for telling passersby to "Google Jury Nullification."
I coauthored the report with Clark Neily and Walter Olson, both of the Cato Institute.
The project includes reports by conservative, libertarian, and progressive teams. I am coauthor of the Team Libertarian report.
John Adams called jury trials part of the "heart and lungs of liberty." Today, defendants are often punished for exercising that very right.
Such victims are often told they have no right to sue.
The agency’s tactics doomed the prosecution of defendants who allegedly planned to kidnap Michigan's governor.
Plus: The View eats its own, NPR ignores a victory for Asian-Americans, and more...
The Second Amendment right is vibrant and prominent for many citizens. The Seventh Amendment right has shriveled to a husk of its former self.
Recognizing the difference between substantive and procedural rights helps enormously in understanding the battles over applying the first eight amendments of the U.S. Constitution to the states. Procedural rights have failed; not only have they not improved procedures, they have made things worse.
Substantive rights have a core that can be meaningfully interpreted and protected; they can exist independently of a particular government or a particular legal system. Procedural rights lack such an independent core because they are necessarily embedded in a whole system of legal procedure, and they depend on that system for their meaning.
Although the affinities between the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and the Seventh Amendment right to civil jury trial seem strong, there are crucial differences. The first concerns individual accountability and the ability to understand responsibilities; the second concerns the distinction between substantive rights and procedural rights.
A new brief asks the Supreme Court to reinstate Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s death sentence.
Insightful thoughts from Dean Vik Amar relevant to Ramos v. Louisiana
Bad news for hundreds of imprisoned defendants in Louisiana and Oregon
Plus: An anti-tech crusader could be joining the FTC, threats to free speech at Columbia University, and more...
The system routinely excludes not only those who might be familiar with a given case, but also those who have relevant background knowledge that might improve the quality of jury deliberations.
Courts ignore constitutional guarantees while defendants awaiting trial languish in jail.
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
