"Across America, survivors of domestic abuse will now wait in fear to see whether Justice Kavanaugh..."
303 Creative, Harvard, Moore, Brackeen, and Pork Producers
Kavanaugh the follower.
Are the biggest cases staggered in June to take advantage of newscycles?
Is the longstanding deferred action policy a major question?
Is the exclusion of "gender identity disorders" from the ADA based on a "bare desire to harm"?
Does she look before she leaps, or does she simply favor judicial restraint?
My tentative thoughts on Nebraska v. Biden.
The majority and dissent state the quiet part out loud: affirmative action was never about the educational benefits from diversity.
How could all of those courts get Hardison so wrong?
Counterman v. Colorado was a throwback to a different era.
"The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims."
The importance of the trial records in Students for Fair Admissions and 303 Creative
Justice Jackson demonstrates why the usual recusal rules will not work for the Supreme Court.
What would Masterpiece have looked like with Justice Kennedy still on Court?
The decision this term that has the largest potential for a legal "jolt" was Mallory.
As the unelected judiciary becomes depoliticized, the elected judiciary becomes more politicized.
With Justice Kavanaugh by his side, the Chief Justice is back in control.
This opinion continues a trend where the Court faults lawyers for making certain arguments, not making other arguments.
Chief Justice Roberts, and regrettably Justice Barrett, keep the case alive by succumbing to the writ of erasure fallacy.
About half the case is on jurisdiction/mootness, and the other half is on election law.
Is this a ticket good for one ride?
The landmark environmental decision may have already been abandoned.
U.S. v. Texas, Linda v. Richard, and Brett v. Amy.
Justice Kavanaugh penned a narrow decision that cobbled together a majority.
United States v. Hansen signals the Court is not willing to "strike down" laws that may, hypothetically, burden someone else's speech rights.
Don't act surprised when Thomas narrowly reads made-up Brennan decision from 1968 that itself reversed precedent.
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
