The Federal Government's 175,000 Pages of Regulations Turn the Rule of Law Into a Cruel Joke
Trump rightly decries the "absurd and unjust" consequences of proliferating regulatory crimes.
Trump rightly decries the "absurd and unjust" consequences of proliferating regulatory crimes.
Briefs urging the Supreme Court to stay injunctions against the order challenge "the conventional wisdom" about the meaning of an 1898 decision interpreting the 14th Amendment.
A declassified assessment contradicts the president's assertion that Tren de Aragua is "closely aligned with" the Venezuelan government and acts at its "direction."
By giving one man the power to impose massive tariffs anytime he wants, Trump's policy undermines the predictability and impartiality that the rule of law requires.
The president’s sweeping import levies have no basis in the statute he cites.
A new ACLU lawsuit argues that the government still is not giving alleged gang members the "notice" required by a Supreme Court order.
There isn't much public enthusiasm for the president's chaotic style.
Two of his targets are seeking permanent injunctions against the president's blatantly unconstitutional executive orders.
Understanding the Supreme Court's unusual late-night ruling against the Trump administration
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg says the evidence indicates that the government "willfully disobeyed" his order blocking removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members.
Legislators have used the state Constitution to avoid accountability for egregious traffic violations.
To justify the immediate deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members, the president is invoking a rarely used statute that does not seem to apply in this context.
"Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts noted after Trump said federal judges who impede his agenda should be fired.
In 2020, the Chief Justice condemned Senator Schumer's "dangerous" remarks.
Threats to impeach federal judges who rule against the government are a naked attack on their constitutionally crucial function.
An exploration of some of the thorny issues that divided the Court.
A pre-opinion release order divides the justices 5-4, but this may not preview the split on the merits.
The newly confirmed head of the country's leading law enforcement agency has a history of advocating politically motivated investigations even while condemning them.
Vice President J.D. Vance believes presidents can ignore the courts in some situations. Are we heading for a constitutional crisis?
Suggestions that the Executive Branch Ignore Federal Court Rulings May Look Different Today than When They Were Proposed.
At his confirmation hearing, the president's pick to run the nation's leading law enforcement agency ran away from his record as a MAGA zealot.
The executive order contradicts the 14th Amendment and 127 years of judicial precedent.
But at least he restored respect for a tariff-loving predecessor by renaming a mountain.
Biden’s preemptive pardons and Trump’s blanket relief for Capitol rioters both set dangerous precedents.
His last-minute acts of clemency invite Trump and future presidents to shield their underlings from the consequences of committing crimes in office.
Despite some notable wins, the president-elect's overall track record shows he cannot count on a conservative Supreme Court to side with him.
Aside from a felony record that may yet be erased on appeal, the president-elect will face no punishment for trying to conceal his hush payment to Stormy Daniels.
The president-elect's pick for FBI director says he rejects some of the right-wing sect's bizarre beliefs but agrees with "a lot of what the movement says."
Trump's pick to run the FBI has a long list of enemies he plans to "come after," with the legal details to be determined later.
"We're gonna come after the people in the media," the Trump stalwart warns. "Whether it's criminally or civilly, we'll figure that out."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reminds us that there are limits to Article III.
Brendan Carr’s plans for "reining in Big Tech" are a threat to limited government, free speech, free markets, and the rule of law.
Unsurprisingly, no justice showed any interest in reviving a lawsuit that should have died long ago.
The justices, including Trump's nominees, have shown they are willing to defy his will when they think the law requires it.
In his second term, the former and future president will have more freedom to follow his worst instincts.
The Republican presidential candidate’s views do not reflect any unifying principle other than self-interest.
The Ohio Solicitor General's office defends universal vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act
With today's cert grants, the Court now has four cases that address the issue of where suits can be filed against federal agencies and who can file them.
An amusing and potentially revealing exchange in a recent oral argument.
The Supreme Court is considering whether a rule targeting "ghost guns" exceeds the agency's statutory authority.
A prominent appellate practitioner responds to recent attacks on the justices and the Court.
The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States are seeking Supreme Court intervention to revive their case against the federal government.
Since when do government officials get to decide that a market is “oversaturated”?
In a new book, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch describes the "human toll" of proliferating criminal penalties.
Insofar as the justices split, it was due to long-standing disagreement over the nature of the Court's original jurisdiction.
Joan Biskupic reports that the justices were initially inclined to back Idaho in the EMTALA case, until they realized the case was messier than they had thought.
Activists and politicians look for almost any excuse to claim that judges should withdraw from cases. Their calls for recusal may be frivolous, but it gives them an opportunity to criticize judges they don't like.
We need not conjure "extreme hypotheticals" to understand the danger posed by an "energetic executive" who feels free to flout the law.
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