The 'Threat' That Supposedly Justified Killing 2 Boat Attack Survivors Was Entirely Speculative
The commander who ordered a second missile strike worried that the helpless men he killed might be able to salvage cocaine from the smoldering wreck.
The commander who ordered a second missile strike worried that the helpless men he killed might be able to salvage cocaine from the smoldering wreck.
Adm. Frank M. Murphy reportedly told lawmakers a controversial second strike was necessary because drugs on the burning vessel remained a threat.
Regardless of what the defense secretary knew or said about the September 2 boat attack, the forces he commands are routinely committing murder in the guise of self-defense.
The 3rd Circuit’s ruling against Alina Habba highlights a disturbing pattern of legal evasion.
Instead of asking whether a particular boat attack went too far, Congress should ask how the summary execution of criminal suspects became the new normal.
FTC staff support the proposal by the Texas Supreme Court to allow for alternative means of accreditation.
Even if you accept the president's assertion of an "armed conflict" with drug smugglers, blowing apart survivors of a boat strike would be a war crime.
A rare instance in which courts were willing to impose sanctions upon sanctionable conduct.
The president’s reaction to a supposedly "seditious" video illustrates his tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime.
The president's authoritarian response to a video posted by six members of Congress, who he says "should be arrested and put on trial," validates their concerns.
The decision is consistent with the president's avowed concerns about "overcriminalization in federal regulations."
Trade deficits are not a "national emergency," and the president's import taxes won’t reduce them.
The government is tying itself in knots to cast murder as self-defense and avoid legal limits on the president's use of the military.
There are several problems with the president's math, which suggests he has accomplished an impossible feat.
The Manhattan district attorney converted a hush payment into 34 felonies via a chain of legal reasoning with several conspicuously weak links.
The potential for deadly error underlines the lawlessness of the president’s bloodthirsty anti-drug strategy.
Until now, the president concedes, interdiction has been "totally ineffective." Blowing up drug boats won't change that reality.
An interesting Reuters report on the new locus of lawsuits challenging the Trump Administration.
Thoughts on the New York Times' Selective Survey of District Court Judges
If the courts try to enforce legal limits on the president's military deployments, he can resort to an alarmingly broad statute that gives him more discretion.
U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut concluded that the president's description of "War ravaged Portland" was "simply untethered to the facts."
The latest ruling reminds us that terrorism statutes are mostly redundant.
The appeals court blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under that law "because we find no invasion or predatory incursion."
A federal district court judge granted environmentalist groups’ request for a preliminary injunction.
A New York Times column on the Supreme Court offers a misleading picture and errant analysis.
The judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit split over whether they should write about the reasons for their splitting over en banc review.
A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against any additional construction at the immigration detention center amid plans to increase the facility’s capacity to 4,000 detainees.
Judge Katsas and Judge Rao disagreed on the reasons, but both agreed that Judge Boasberg overstepped; Judge Pillard dissented.
Rushing out opinions can lock in erroneous conclusions and create problematic precedent.
The Supreme Court's critics are too quick to assume the Court's orders are motivated by political considerations as opposed to principle.
Trump v. CASA was important, but it is not clear district courts have gotten the message.
Two members of the House Judiciary Committee say the case against Michelino Sunseri epitomizes the overcriminalization that the president decries.
The alleged incident goes to the heart of the objections raised by critics who worry about Bove's respect for the rule of law.
There's a tension between Progressives' efforts to delegitimize the courts and hopes the judiciary to constrain executive power.
It's an obvious abuse of emergency powers, a claim to unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and a threat to the economy and the rule of law.
The Cato Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance urge the Federal Circuit to extend the logic of a decision against the president's far-reaching import taxes.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is considering whether the president properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.
Justice Kavanaugh's Trump v. CASA concurrence appears to reply to Judge Ho.
Justice Kagan said "it just can't be right" that a single court judge can stop a federal policy in its tracks nationwide.
Two worthwhile commentaries on the Supreme Court's decision to curtail universal injunctions.
The two newest justices spar over universal injunctions.
Justice Barrett writes for the Court's majority that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable power of federal courts.
Although the appeals court said the president probably complied with the law he invoked to justify his California deployment, it emphasized that such decisions are subject to judicial review.
The government's lawyer told a 9th Circuit panel the president's deployments are "unreviewable," so he need not even pretend to comply with the statute on which he is relying.
The Senate has adopted its own version of a provision designed to limit preliminary injunctions against the federal government when no bond is posted.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer concluded that the president failed to comply with the statute he cited—and violated the 10th Amendment too.
In a federal lawsuit, California's governor argues that the president's assertion of control over "the State's militia" is illegal and unconstitutional.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! 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 thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
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