Five Executive Orders To Unleash Markets in Space
Simple policy changes can unleash innovation, remove barriers, and secure U.S. dominance in the final frontier.
Simple policy changes can unleash innovation, remove barriers, and secure U.S. dominance in the final frontier.
Brendan Carr’s plans for "reining in Big Tech" are a threat to limited government, free speech, free markets, and the rule of law.
The justices, including Trump's nominees, have shown they are willing to defy his will when they think the law requires it.
The Court's decision to overturn Chevron should be seen as more of a "course correction" than a revolution. (Updated with Video.)
The Court this year reversed Chevron, a decades-old precedent giving bureaucrats deference over judges when the law is ambiguous.
The agency claims DOI and DOC have "a high potential for abuse" because they resemble other drugs it has placed in Schedule I.
The decision to overturn Chevron removes an agency trump card, but does not instruct courts to ignore agency opinions--and they won't.
Contrary to progressive criticism, curtailing bureaucratic power is not about protecting "the wealthy and powerful."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says these cases will "devastate" the regulatory state. Good.
“Immigration is an area of the law where the partisan alignments break down over Chevron.”
The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law allows or requires.
Chevron deference, a doctrine created by the Court in 1984, gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the meaning of various laws. But the justices may overturn that.
New Jersey fishermen are challenging a 40-year-old precedent that gives executive agencies too much power.
Did we get a hint to the outcome in one of this term's bigger cases at today's oral argument?
Some thoughts on the most important issue in Relentless and Loper Bright.
The justices seem inclined to revise or ditch a 1984 precedent that requires deference to executive agencies' statutory interpretations.
Excessive judicial deference gives administrative agencies a license to rewrite the law in their favor.
The panel covered many cases and featured views many would not expect at a Fed Soc event.
Plus: Divides over misinformation, on free markets and social justice, and more…
One of today's two cert grants comes in a case asking the justices to reconsider Chevron v. NRDC.
While the US Supreme Court continues to require judges to defer to administrative agencies' interpretations of law in many situations, numerous states have abolished or severely curbed such deference. The results should temper both hopes and fears associated with ending judicial deference to agencies.
Attempts to reclassify ISPs as common carriers are unsupported by law.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed questions on a range of questions at a recent Notre Dame symposium.
The decision defends the separation of powers and the rule of law against an attempt to prohibit firearm accessories by administrative fiat.
A majority of judges concluded the plain language of the statute does not apply to bump stocks, but they also would have denied Chevron deference had they found the statute ambiguous.
A new opinion concludes Ohio courts need not defer to agency interpretations. The justices are not unanimous, but no justice writes in favor of deference.
The Supreme Court proclaimed this term that the Lemon test had been abandoned. Is this what is in story for Chevron?
American Hospital Association v. Becerra is another indication that lower courts are too quick to give agencies Chevron deference.
An interesting administrative law tidbit in one of today's Supreme Court decisions.
The puzzle of marijuana's Schedule I status invites a reconsideration of the agency's vast discretion to decide which substances should be prohibited.
This ruling has some distinctive elements, and may have a broader impact than previous decisions.
A federal appeals court rejects a highly implausible redefinition of machine guns.
A long awaited decision in a challenge to the Trump Administration's "bump stock" ban tees up some interesting questions for the High Court's review.
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