The latest in the ten-part Tillman-Blackman series on Offices and Officers of the Constitution
The Trump Administration didn't lose but it didn't quite win either.
Oh, and by the way, the complainant is a prisoner who had a "role in firebombing and vandalizing Jewish houses of worship."
Should the Court not consider jurisdiction unless there is irreparable harm?
Justice Barrett tells us to read the opinion, but there is nothing to read.
In two consecutive orders, the Court signals that progressive litigants forum shopped to the wrong courts.
Judge Rao: "It is extremely doubtful that mandamus could issue against the President."
Noem v. Garcia comes to the Supreme Court.
The dissenters no longer treat the federal government with solicitude as a coordinate branch of government.
Moreover, challenges to spending belong in the Court of Federal Claims, not in Federal District Court.
What will Justice Barrett do next?
Salerno is "unique among these Chevron substitutes, in that the 'no set of circumstances' framework is far more favorable to the government than even Chevron ever was."
It is very easy to reverse a court when you exclude virtually every argument from consideration.
Ten teams of high school students presented oral arguments on Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
The Court may have overruled Chevron, but it has just inadvertently created a far more powerful deference doctrine with Salerno, all in service of narrowly reversing the Fifth Circuit.
Remarks delivered at the Texas A&M Journal of Law & Civil Governance Banquet
Dueling letters from 90+ members of the HLS faculty and Adrian Vermeule
The Justices have had plenty of time to think about how to resolve Humphrey's Executor and should not punt.
The Trump administration detains individuals in Texas and Louisiana, yet federal courts on the Amtrak Corridor continue to exercise jurisdiction.
Justice Barrett (almost certainly) has Medical Marijuana v. Horn.
Young Lawyers, Law Clerks, and Law Students are welcome to apply for our Summer 2025 Fellowship on August 3-8, 2025.
Even Nino nods on the Confrontation Clause.
"To the contrary, an examination of the history of TROs and interlocutory appeals reveals that TROs were not appealable solely because of a now-repealed statutory requirement that the appealed-from interlocutory order be issued 'upon a hearing.'"
No, this fight will not end well for the courts.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks