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.
There are two sides to the constitutional crisis coin: if the president seeks a timely appeal, courts should consider those appeals in a timely fashion.
Another problematic point raised in a resignation letter.
Another day, another resignation letter.
The ABA has been planting the seeds of its own demise for decades.
The District Court injunction did not stay its ruling, but the Court of appeals did shortly thereafter.
Judge Bibas, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, revises his prior summary judgment opinion.
Prosecutorial discretion comes full circle.
Everyone take a deep breath.
The President did offer some potential causes for removal.
The "forgiveness doctrine" should be the basis for continued immunity while in office.
Congress has no role in funding the CFPB. The Director can request as much as is "reasonably necessary." What if he decides that amount is $0?
There is no Incompatibility Clause problem. And so long as the position is uncompensated, there would be no problem with the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
Congress enacted a facially unconstitutional provision, and the Solicitor General could only ask the Supreme Court to overrule Hammer.
The separation of politics, not the separation of powers, will decide Wilcox v. Trump.
The government would have a much stronger interest to ban a Chinese AI app that collects proprietary information than to ban a social media app that displays dance videos.
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
