Mark Meador thinks the Federal Trade Commission may have the legal right to investigate nonprofits that “advocate for the interests of giant corporations” if they don’t disclose their donors.
An important new article explains why the Supreme Court's precedents denying many constitutional rights to residents of America's overseas territories are wrong.
Though awkward and antiquated, the Second Amendment’s syntax and grammar unambiguously protect gun rights.
A unanimous Supreme Court decision established as much in 1965.
How a 1949 Supreme Court dissent gave birth to a meme that subverts free speech and civil liberties
Plus: Israel in the Golan Heights, trouble in China's government, Whoopi Goldberg tries to explain health insurance, and more...
Federal agents are allowed to search private property without a warrant under this Prohibition-era Supreme Court precedent.
"Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties," said one researcher. "This is a dictator's fantasy."
Half the country says suppressing “false information” is more important than press freedom.
The push to regulate social media content infringes on rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
The Supreme Court judges Eighth Amendment cases with "evolving standards of decency." Some conservative jurists don't like it.
The Nixon administration did everything it could to curb antiwar activism. Then the courts said it had gone too far.
Rethinking the constitutional defense of reproductive rights after Dobbs via the Ninth Amendment
The former president may be a hypocrite, but at least he knows his own rights.
I asked scholars, podcasters, and passersby how they'd change the nation's founding charter. Here's what they told me.
John Adams called jury trials part of the "heart and lungs of liberty." Today, defendants are often punished for exercising that very right.
When did the K-9 arrive? And what was the probable cause for the search?
Forcing private companies to host speech violates the First Amendment.
Already abused for political purposes, the power of government shouldn’t be expanded based on lies.
Politicians deputize the private sector to restrict rights protected from the government.
People doubt the government's role as a protector but send mixed messages about their value of freedom.
The Third Amendment Lawyers Association argues in a recent amicus brief that the federal eviction ban requires landlords to quarter soldiers.
Without a Bill of Rights, the land down under quickly goes where America may eventually follow.
Holding a sign in a public park should not cause an arrest.
We expect British royals to favor muzzling commoners, but too many lawmakers feel the same way.
Power-seeking public officials thrive on our fear.
The greatest threat to protections for our freedom may be people's fear that people who disagree with them are exercising their rights.
The decision in Timbs v. Indiana is a significant step forward for property rights and civil liberties, though a key issue remains to be resolved by lower courts.
Compelled use of facial and finger recognition features runs afoul of the Fifth Amendment.
The Court seems very likely to rule that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to state governments, and that at least some asset forfeitures violate the Clause. Potentially a big win for property rights and civil liberties.
The case both addresses important legal issues, and could have substantial practical implications.
The Court could strike a major blow for civil asset forfeiture reforms in the states and finally do away with an awful double jeopardy loophole.
The U.S. Constitution was signed on this day 231 years ago.
The case will decide whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states. If so, it will also have to address how much it restricts asset forfeiture.
Prof. Michael Mannheimer and I have coauthored an op ed explaining why the Bill of Rights limits federal power over immigration, and renders Trump's travel ban unconstitutional.
The brief, which I coauthored on behalf of myself and six other legal scholars explains why the Bill of Rights constrains federal power over immigration no less than other types of federal power.
What the 2nd Circuit's opinion in U.S. v. Tigano reveals about the state of our criminal justice system
At the country's founding, there were no walls to stop people from coming ashore and few rules to stop anyone from trying out new ideas.
A new bill may end this absurd practice
"I tend to err on the side of security, I must tell you."
One of the most vocal civil libertarians of the past century has died.
Her positions on gun ownership and political speech are at odds with the Bill of Rights.
It's not irrational to have lost faith in government.
The Bill of Rights largely embodied uncontroversial traditional rights of Englishmen.
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
