Justice Kavanaugh laid out a unifying theory for the Shadow Docket.
The walls are closing on universal, non-party injunctions against state laws.
Justice Thomas: “constitutional rights are generally invoked defensively in cases arising under other sources of law, or asserted offensively pursuant to an independent cause of action designed for that purpose”
A careful textualist analysis that speaks more broadly to other substantive canons, including Chevron deference.
No matter how you slice it, Smith cannot exercise the powers he purports to exercise.
"This isn’t about forum shopping. It’s about forum shaming. It’s about shaming judges who won’t distort their rulings to do their bidding—while rewarding those judges who do."
"Though at times the two seem more like in-laws than soulmates."
"I never thought I would see such blatant antisemitism."
Gibbons declined to take senior status during the Trump years, but will now be replaced by her former law clerk.
McConnell's bill would ensure that no one can benefit from nationwide injunctions. Schumer's bill would ensure that liberal litigants still benefit from nationwide injunctions.
Judges Oldham and Higginson disagree about where a case belongs: NDTX or DDC.
The establishment principles grounded in original meaning can be shifted to the Free Exercise Clause.
Now, for better or worse, the Judicial Conference has shown itself to be pliable by the political currents.
This court will not "make any change to our case assignment process at this time."
Are the ABA and the legal profession doing enough to promote viewpoint diversity?
If Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacks standing, so should progressive groups.
In the Trump immunity case, SCOTUS effectively granted a stay without considering the likelihood of success on the merits.
Tillman on most things: "There are multiple aspects of the standard narrative ... that just don’t make any sense and that people just have mindlessly repeated for almost two centuries now,”
At most, Smith’s temporary position is properly characterized as a mere “employee.” To paraphrase Justice Scalia’s Morrison v. Olson dissent, this employee came as an employee.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
