Today's Supreme Court ruling barring nationwide injunctions could empower the federal government to engage in large-scale violations of the Constitution. Exactly how bad the consequences will be depends on the extent to which other remedies can be used to forestall them.
Professor Joel Alicea on how to understand what may be the most important jurisprudential divisions on the Supreme Court.
The participants were Amanda Shanor (Univ. of Pennsylvania), Alan Trammell (Washington and Lee), Wilfred Codrington, III (Cardozo), and myself.
An important (and importantly civil) debate on birthright citizenship.
Evan Bernick's first in a series of guest-blogging post: Part I of a critique of an important defense of the constitutionality of Donald Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship.
A response to Joel Alicea on whether originalism needs a moral defense.
The originalist case for a unitary executive falls apart in an era when many of the powers wielded by the executive branch were not originally supposed to be federal powers in the first place.
The law is wasteful and protectionist. Now, a new lawsuit argues that it is unconstitutional too.
Georgetown constitutional law professor Randy Barnett discusses the legality of DOGE, Trump's executive orders, and birthright citizenship.
The arguments are not new. The willingness of an Administration to act on them are.
by Steven Gow Calabresi and Gary Lawson.
Why constitutional theory needs more theory.
Randy Barnett developed an influential form of constitutional originalism.
Libertarian legal giant Randy Barnett on his epic Supreme Court battles, the Federalist Society, and watching movies with Murray Rothbard.
The Supreme Court's flawed decision largely ignores text and original meaning, and fails to resolve crucial issues.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.
Third in a seris of guest-blogging posts.
Why originalist criticisms of Dobbs often misfire, and why criticisms *of* Dobbs's originalism often misfire too.
In interview with Joe Selvaggi of the Pioneer Institute, I explain the harm caused by exclusionary zoning, and why it violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Professor Marc De Girolami's assessment of the Roberts Court.
A leading originalist legal scholar explains what the Court got wrong.
Coauthor Josh Braver and I argue exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A keynote address to the Symposium on Common Good Constitutionalism.
Letting state officials determine whether a candidate has "engaged in insurrection" opens a huge can of worms.
More than you might think—and it’s getting better all the time.
The opposing view is contrary to the original meaning, and leads to absurd conclusions.
A fascinating new exploration of Frederick Douglass' constitutional thought.
My response to Rob Natelson's argument that Madison's Report is largely irrelevant to the constitutional debate over immigration.
Its existence was revealed when Justice John Paul Stevens' papers were made public earlier this week.
The liberal justice seems ready to fight legal conservatives on their own ground.
Originalist scholar Larry Solum suggests KBJ could be the Left's Antonin Scalia.
Professor Natelson versus Professor Ablavsky
Originalist legal scholars Mike Ramsey and Mike Rappaport debate whether the major questions doctrine - an important theory underlying several recent Supreme Court decisions - can be squared with originalism or not.
If the Supreme Court was correct in Dobbs, was it wrong in Bolling?
A new study sheds interesting light on these questions.
The justice overlooks the long American tradition of pharmacological freedom and the dubious constitutional basis for federal bans.
Adrian Vermeule responds to Judge Bill Pryor, and others comment on "Common Good Constitutionalism"
It explains why many of the reasons GOP senators gave for opposing Jackson were ridiculous, but also that there is nothing inherently wrong in opposing a qualified "mainstream" nominee based on differences over judicial philosophy.
A recent lecture defends Originalist judging against its upstart conservative rival.
We discussed my book "Free to Move," the state of originalism, and other issues.
The new Eaton Award from the University of Chicago Federalist Society: This year's topic is "Does originalism still work?"
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
