As American as Due Process
Those accused of wrongdoing have the right to challenge the evidence against them before the government takes away their liberty.
Those accused of wrongdoing have the right to challenge the evidence against them before the government takes away their liberty.
Trump v. Hawaii may block a challenge based on unconstitutional discrimination. But it does not preclude a nondelegation case. Other recent developments may actually bolster that approach.
Sen. Blackburn introduced a bill this week that would make it a crime to publish the name of a federal law enforcement officer.
Next week could be a pivotal one, as a federal appeals court could decide whether to restore an injunction against Trump's tariffs.
The case against Michelino Sunseri exemplifies the injustice caused by the proliferation of regulatory crimes—the target of a recent presidential order.
This crucial procedural issue is now before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Its resolution will determine whether the tariffs are immediately suspended, or get to continue so long as the case is stil being litigated.
Vicki Baker's legal odyssey is finally coming to an end.
The court ruled on Thursday that a heterosexual woman shouldn't have to clear a higher bar than a gay colleague to sue for discrimination.
Unanimous rulings on discrimination, guns, and religion once again challenge the common media narrative that the Court is hopelessly polarized.
Sandy Martinez was fined for a parking violation on her own property, driveway cracks, and a storm-damaged fence.
Without such intervention, he warns, the government "could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action."
Plus: A love letter to the heavy metal band Slayer.
A leading conservative legal scholar explains why striking down Trump's IEEPA tariffs is vital to protecting the separation of powers.
That total will rise to about $3 trillion once the interest costs of more borrowing are included.
House members who discovered objectionable elements only after voting for the package nevertheless underline the unseemly haste of the legislative process.
Plaintiffs’ argument that access to in-home psilocybin services for those with disabilities is required under the ADA survives motion to dismiss.
The president treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat.
Paul said he refuses to support "maintaining Biden spending levels," and Musk said the Trump-backed tax bill is "a disgusting abomination."
Olympus Spa had sued on First Amendment grounds.
Complying with export regulations should build trust between Nvidia and Congress, not erode it.
Since retaking power, the Taliban has banned certain music, barred women from parks, and now outlawed chess. Authoritarians don’t just crush dissent—they criminalize joy.
that treats the Library of Congress as an Executive Branch department as to Presidential removal of the Librarian.
The brief was filed on behalf of the Brennan Center, the Cato Institute, law-of-war scholar Prof. John Dehn, and myself.
The MAGA loyalty that Trump demands is anathema to everything that originalism is supposed to be about.
My latest Civitas Outlook column looks at the growing pressure on the ABA's role in law school accreditation.
A symposium looking at the need to permit the construction and deployment of energy infrastructure in order to meet environmental goals.
Claims that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is at the center for the Court are not supported by the data. The truth is more complicated.
The podcasts cover the case and its relationship to the more general problem of abuse of emergency powers.
The disgraced former Democratic senator was convicted of accepting almost $1 million in bribes in exchange for, among other things, favors benefiting foreign governments.
This question can be informed by more than anecdote and intuition.
The Lone Star State's bill is already facing legal challenges.
In a legal filing this week, Trump argued that routine edits to a CBS News interview he did not participate in caused him "confusion and mental anguish."
Both are wins for free trade, but only one vindicates the separation of powers.
For both practical and constitutional reasons, this is the obvious way out of the chaos Trump's tariffs have created.
The federal courts are supposed to be a bulwark against presidential overreach, not a rubber stamp.
It explains how the ruling is a win for separation of powers and the rule of law.
The Wall Street Journal, CBC, and Time published good articles on the story behind the case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
Some of the more informative interviews I have done about our win in the case against Trump's tariffs, in lawsuit filed by the Liberty Justice Center and myself.
The decision by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the US District Court for the District Columbia holds IEEPA doesn't authorize the president to impose tariffs at all.
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