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.
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan cite Sir Matthew Hale.
Justice Gorsuch's conservative colleagues now ignore him in Indian cases.
Believe it or not, Justice Kennedy's final opinion toned down some of the "awkward language."
"ProPublica has leveled two charges against me. . . . Neither charge is valid."
Three decades later, the George H.W. Bush SCOTUS strategy finally has three votes.
The limiting principle presented in Lopez would likely not meet her threshold.
I'm holding my breath on his predictions in Allen and Brackeen.
Justice Gorsuch v. Justice Thomas in Brackeen.
Scalia was right: "The only thing that will 'confine' the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."
Justices Gorsuch and Alito have diametrically opposite perspectives on Indian Tribes
Justice Thomas would place the burden on the government, and follow a presumption of liberty.
133 pages down to 30 pages.
Does the special counsel "seek to avoid distracting fights"?
"To be clear, we mean no disrespect to either of these fine academics but their views on this matter are idiosyncratic."
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