Wisconsin Reined in Public Sector Unions. Now Those Reforms Are in Jeopardy.
Act 10 saved taxpayers billions and helped government run more efficiently. Fifteen years later, a questionable legal challenge may doom it.
Act 10 saved taxpayers billions and helped government run more efficiently. Fifteen years later, a questionable legal challenge may doom it.
As lawmakers of both major parties hustle to regulate their preferred villains, they're losing sight of the big picture. The possible gains to humanity from AI are enormous.
The outcome is unclear. But the judges seemed skeptical of the Trump Administration's claims that Section 122 grants them sweeping tariff powers.
The case will determine whether an unnamed plaintiff can take the hospital and its doctors to federal court.
The Court of International Trade is weighing the legality of the import taxes that the president wants to impose under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The kids climate cases continue to have standing problems in federal court.
Greenlandic hunters fear a U.S. takeover because Americans "think whales and seals are cute and shouldn’t be hunted."
One weird trick could extend Social Security's solvency while reducing payments to the wealthiest households. But it doesn't go far enough.
It would be easy to wave it away and move on. But that's how the U.S. got in such a dire fiscal situation.
The feeling is perfectly consistent: Graham feels it should be as easy as possible for the U.S. to start a war, and as hard as possible to end one.
How the digital privacy rights of millions are at stake in Chatrie v. United States.
The newlywed couple thought they were doing “everything the right way” by reporting to the base to start their lives together.
I submitted the brief on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
He's using tools that were advertised as humane, but he isn't hiding the cruelty involved.
The Administration's constitutional arguments are unconvincing, but rejecting them is not necessary to decide United States v. Barbara
Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar.
"No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded when he enjoined the project.
Plus: Fox and Sinclair go crying to the FCC over sports streaming, and the Masters ticket lottery makes it too hard to get in
Plus: Wisconsin governor vetoes porn age-check bill, more charges for penis protester, the Komodo dragon theory of social media, and more...
Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden asked the Supreme Court to abolish nationwide injunctions, which allow federal judges to stop a federal policy from going into effect.
The government's new rule reverses a Biden-era anti-contracting directive and returns to a more contractor-friendly posture. But will this tug of war ever end?
There are far too few checks left on executive power.
The leader of Reform U.K. pledged to keep the "triple lock" mechanism in place, which is driving the state pension program to financial unsustainability.
The proposal is "an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and would make Americans less, not more, safe." Thankfully, Congress is unlikely to adopt it.
A week after Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to pause AI data center construction indefinitely, Maine is poised to institute the first statewide ban.
A 2024 study estimated that 30,000 people every year may be getting wrongly arrested due to unreliable roadside drug tests used by police.
There is no voting crisis that demands federal intervention.
A new book revisits this 50-year-old Watergate report as President Donald Trump pursues his own politically motivated investigations.
"It shouldn't be this hard to give birth safely in the state of Alabama, and it doesn't have to," said the ACLU's lead counsel on the case.
A federal judge ruled the Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol must be removed.
The agency refused to prosecute alleged national security, labor, and white-collar crime while increasing immigration cases, a new report finds.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara.
The Trump administration keeps trying to find legal loopholes, but the will of the people is the final judge of any major policy.
There was little rhyme or reason to the president's "emergency" tariffs, which fluctuated wildly depending on his mood.
Justice Barrett raised a crucial issue in today's birthright citizenship oral argument. Trump's Solicitor General gave an inaccurate response.
The bill would not only codify Trump's actions into law, it would establish a framework for both this and future administrations to do it too.
The administration's arguments for denying birthright ctizenship to children of undocumented immigrants are at odds with the main purpose of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rather than debating over who should fill the role, Congress and the White House should just eliminate it altogether.
The president's predictions of the nation's imminent demise reflect his narcissistic authoritarianism.
Foreign Law in American Courts
holds a federal court in declining to enforce the Beijing judgment, and in therefore concluding that Stanford holds title to documents donated to the Hoover Institution by a Chinese Mao-era dissident.
It argues that the right to use property is central to both the value of property rights generally, and the property rights protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
But only if politicians learn to focus on the boring basics of aviation policy.
Understanding the stakes in Trump v. Barbara.
A court sets aside a federal arson conviction (which would have carried a "mandatory minimum sentence" of "seven years") for a fan's throwing flares at a soccer stadium and causing minor damage and a minor injury.
The jurors concluded that the officers violated the Fourth and 14th amendments when they seized a 14-year-old without evidence that she was in danger.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.