I have a very hard time getting worked up over revoked security clearances.
"Indeed my dear, Sir if my path was strewed with as many roses, as you have filled your letter with compliments, I should not now lament my absence from America."
Justice Kavanaugh visits a brewery and then switches places with Peter Griffin.
If the Court denies the writ or application, the Court cannot instruct the lower court.
"AUSA-1 hoped to convict Mayor Adams as the last notch in his belt before he took a 'seat on the bench.'"
"That prospect explains the absence of deferred prosecution agreements involving public officials."
The states claim that the terminations "impeded the ability of many Plaintiff states to support affected employees," thereby creating an Article III injury.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett are engaging in alternative dispute resolution, rather than constitutional adjudication.
The lower courts, which are issuing unappealing rulings, are inverting the Article III hierarchy. This Inferior Court Supremacy cannot stand.
Ten teams of high school students presented oral arguments on Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
Roberts will find that the removal was unlawful, but that the court lacks an equitable cause of action to reinstate it, leaving backpay as the only available judicial remedy.
Is this opinion a "one and done" decision to evade en banc review?
Federal judges are walking on thin ice by issuing unappealable TROs and failing to stay their rulings.
No, this did not occur in Texas.
Did Kennedy v. Bremerton overrule the precedent on precedent from Rodriguez de Quijas?
It is never too early to make predictions!
Can a federal judge ask a DOJ lawyer "What do you think Jesus would say"?
Apart from the Appointments Clause, I think we are standing at the precipice of federal courts revolution.
But Justice Thomas is still the only Justice who (correctly) concludes that Haywood v. Drown (2009) was incorrectly decided.
This decision may not pan out for the court.
Twenty-two teams of high school students presented oral arguments on Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
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