Biden's Supreme Court Reforms Are Unnecessary and Wrong
The Supreme Court is not as “extreme” or divided as it may seem.
The Supreme Court is not as “extreme” or divided as it may seem.
Her concurrence is a reminder that the application of criminal law should not be infected by personal animus toward any given defendant.
There is a great deal of panic surrounding the "extreme" nature of the current Court. But that is often not based in reality.
Thomas agreed with the Court's decision to not take up two challenges to New York's rent stabilization law but said the constitutionality of rent control "is an important and pressing question."
The provisions seem sensible, though there are legitimate concerns about enforcement.
Ethics allegations have been raised against Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Sonia Sotomayor. Both sides have retreated into whataboutism.
The Supreme Court was wrong to deny relief to a man imprisoned for activity that Court's own rulings indicate was not illegal - one who never had an opportunity to challenge his incarceration on that basis.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson may speak the most at oral argument, but Justice Thomas is writing more pages.
Plus: A look back at Rochelle Walensky's tenure as head of the CDC
The 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan makes it more difficult for public figures to prove defamation—but as we saw this week, not impossible.
Plus: What the editors hate most about the IRS and tax day
Contrary to the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, Donald Trump thinks harsh criticism of the president should be actionable.
Attempts to reclassify ISPs as common carriers are unsupported by law.
Justice Thomas' footprints are all over the Court's recently concluded term.
The Supreme Court often reverses the U.S. Court of Appeals in habeas cases, but not this time.
Understanding the jurisprudence of the conservative Supreme Court justice
The university's own students are often not so lucky.
The Court told appeals courts to reconsider their conclusions in light of last week's ruling against New York's restrictions on public possession of firearms.
National legislation and extraterritorial application of state laws are inconsistent with the local leeway that the Constitution protects.
Plus: stereotypes within libertarianism, and Katherine compares the editors to Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters.
Justice Thomas reiterates his desire to revisit the contours of defamation law and New York Times v. Sullivan.
In his Dobbs concurrence, the senior associate justice reiterates his outlying views on precedent and his belief that all substantive due process decisions were "demonstrably erroneous."
The ruling against New York's carry permit policy is a rebuke to courts that routinely rubber-stamp gun restrictions.
The other justices declined to join him, but the future of the Supreme Court rulings on those matters remains unclear.
Justice Breyer and others argue that gun regulations deserve special judicial deference because Second Amendment rights create risks to life. But the same is true of many other constitutional rights.
A 6–3 ruling undermines attempts to hold police accountable for misconduct.
Plus: Who's bringing fentanyl across the border? Will Austin become a sanctuary city for abortion? And more...
Xiulu Ruan, a pain specialist, was sentenced to 21 years in federal prison for prescribing opioid analgesics "outside the usual course of professional medical practice."
The justices unanimously agree that the city was not endorsing the flags, and that therefore it couldn’t exclude religious organizations.
Nikki Fried, a Democrat, is suing the Biden administration, arguing that the policy violates the Second Amendment and a congressional spending rider.
The inspections caused great economic harm, and may also have violated the Dormant Foreign Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
ABCNews unearths an interesting interview with Ketanji Brown Jackson about Justice Clarence Thomas
In two opinions issued Monday, the Court gave qualified immunity to several police officers accused of violating the Constitution.
The Court has "failed to justify our enacted policy," he wrote.
He repeats his concern that QI doctrine rests on "shaky ground" and imposes a "one-size-fits-all doctrine" that is "an odd fit for many cases," including those involving university administrators.
Like a number of other modern conservatives, Thomas seems to think that Twitter and other tech companies are effectively censoring right-of-center views.
A moot case about Trump blocking tweets leads to concerns that tech companies have too much control over speech.
The episode reflects poorly on Biden.
"I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence," writes Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissent.
"The fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution," Thomas writes, should be "applied equally to all citizens."
Thomas thinks the Supreme Court may have erred in its 1964 NYT v. Sullivan ruling.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has some concerns.
"If Kavanaugh was going to deal a major blow to health care rights during his first session on the court, this would have been the case to do it."
"If you can't debate hard issues honestly, with honor, with integrity, how do we keep a civil society?" Thomas said.
Cornell law professor Michael Dorf asks whether Clarence Thomas would vote to strike down federal laws restricting abortion, on federalism grounds. The answer might well be yes. But the issue would have to be presented to him in the right way.
The justices have passed up one opportunity after another to clarify the boundaries of the constitutional right to arms.
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