If the SG drags her feet, she can postpone oral arguments until the October 2022 term
It has happened to the best of us.
Who will write the majority opinions?
The SG's changed position was unanimously rejected. But Justice Sotomayor refused to join CT's "unnecessary, incomplete, and sanitized history of the 100-to-1 ratio."
Congratulations to the champions.
"This case forces us to choose between aggravating a past error and committing a new one. I must choose the former."
Justice Kagan wrote Borden. The Chief likely has the Obamacare case, and Justice Alito likely has Fulton.
We "affirm on the First Amendment claim because there was no great likelihood that some sort of message would be understood by those who viewed Burns's new beachfront mansion"
I am horrified to think there are 5,000 tweets worth clipping for the Justices.
“I wasn’t comfortable giving [Taney's] words to my students because I was afraid it would hurt them and destroy the kind of community I want to foster in class.”
Biden and Garland are not on the same page about Puerto Rico, E. Jean Carroll, the Mueller Memo, and gag orders of the press.
For once, the clerk interviews his judge!
Who will write Fulton and the Obamacare case?
The N.Y. Times published a detailed analysis about the ACLU"s "Identity Crisis."
This attempt at a "Gotcha" moment backfired.
124 pages will take you from the onset of the pandemic through Tandom v. Newsom
Fortunately, the SBA backed down after FIRE intervened.
I commend the journals for this forward-thinking move, and encourage other law schools to establish journals for conservative, libertarian, textualist, originalist, and classical liberal scholarship.
Deans who go woke will alienate conservative donors. Deans who refuse to go woke will alienate progressive faculties and students.
I submitted a comment with Professors Volokh and Strossen.
For the past month, the Fifth Circuit has posted oral argument audio on YouTube.
This trend towards legal newspeak troubles me. Any language--past or present--that offends some must be canceled.
"Accordingly, were there no constitutional barrier, we would recommend, under the Principles of Federal Prosecution, that you decline to commence such a prosecution."
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