I have yet to see any actual quotation that expressed this sentiment.
An argument from Lawrence recurs in Dobbs.
Justice Scalia would have written one helluva dissent.
"I have yet to find any historical precedent for such an invasive regulation of workers nationwide."
We cannot simply presume that Congress can indirectly regulate private conduct through the direct regulation of workplace safety.
No, Chief Justice Roberts does not draw a number from a hat.
My annual remembrance of September 11, 2011
There are several elements of the panel's decision that cast doubt on DOJ's case.
It feels like 2010, all over again.
The new executive action will also implicate the spending power, and federalism.
There will be lots of litigation, and some judge, somewhere, will find the mandate unlawful.
He implores Nina Totenberg, "I would like this interview to be about my book."
This case really should be captioned United States v. United States.
"The State of Texas includes all of its officers, employees, and agents, including private parties who would bring suit under S.B. 8."
Summer fellows are eligible to earn $10,000 in salary for their 10 weeks of employment.
It still isn't clear who DOJ would sue. Even if sovereign immunity is waived, there is no statewide injunction available.
Instead of issuing summary order, Court grants cert, and orders oral argument in Ramirez v. Collier for "October or November 2021."
The Court will also provide a live audio feed from the Court.
One year since Justice Ginsburg's passing on the Jewish calendar.
Carter Snead: "Texas responded to this futile cycle by adopting a strategy developed by progressives to root out fraud against the government": citizen suits.
At some point, some abortion provider will try to set up a test case to challenge S.B. 8.
If you want to win before a conservative Supreme Court, you must learn to use the lingo of conservative Justices.
President Biden is wrong: The Supreme Court lacks the “supreme authority to ensure justice could be fairly sought.”
But who would the United States sue?
The ACLU endorses a dictum from Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) that predated modern Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence.
Chief Justice Roberts dissented, and would have "preclude[d] enforcement of S. B. 8 by the respondents." But it isn't clear how the named respondents could enforce the law.
I hope the Justices, and their clerks, exercise even greater discipline to avoid further leaks.
Contributions from Katsas, Maggs, Stras, Ho, Hardy, Ryan, Rao, and Garnett
Twenty-five years ago, the official biographer was paid $600,000. Timothy Flanigan is in no hurry.
This article for the Cato Supreme Court Review—my fourth—considers the legal arguments that California v. Texas declined to reach.
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