The court ruled the subpoenas were part of an unconstitutional effort to coerce Minnesota state and local governments into giving up their immigration "sanctuary" policies.
Since it lost its first case on technical procedural grounds, the company plans to try again.
A webinar discussion of whether we are seeing conservation commandeering.
The appellate court rightly concludes that Gordon-Darby's lawsuit had multiple legal problems.
A pending case will test whether courts are willing to enforce the anticommandeering doctrine in the context of environmental protection.
Whether the issue is immigration enforcement or environmental law, states are not obligated to enforce federal laws.
Judge McCafferty refuses to stay her unconstitutional injunction, and it appears the state AG's office is still failing to raise its strongest constitutional defense.
It explains how sanctuary policies are justified on both constitutional and moral grounds.
Although a federal judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction requested by Minnesota and the Twin Cities, the plaintiffs should still prevail on their claims that the federal government’s actions there are unconstitutional.
There may be lots of things wrong with the way the Trump Administration is handling immigration enforcement in Minneapolis, but commandeering is not among them.
The "Live Free or Die" state effectively acquiesces to unconstitutional commandeering of the state government under the Clean Air Act.
The article describes the suit, and explains why it deserves to prevail.
Montana's new law refusing to help enforce federal gun restrictions is similar to liberal "sanctuary cities'" refusal to assist in federal immigration enforcement. Both are protected by Constitution.
The decision allows the Justice Department to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal grants to state governments, and goes against numerous other court decisions striking down the exact same policy.
California has largely prevailed in the lower courts, and the administration's petition focuses on the part of the law with the strongest backing from Supreme Court federalism precedent. It's a case the administration deserves to lose.
My newly posted article explains how the administration's efforts have had the unintended effect of strengthening judicial protection for state autonomy.
The ruling is the latest in a long line of setbacks for the administration's efforts to punish sanctuary jurisdictions by withholding federal law enforcement grants.
The ruling is notable in underscoring how the Supreme Court's sports-betting decision in Murphy v. NCAA helps sanctuary cities.
The ruling is the latest in long line of defeats for the administration's efforts to cut federal grants to sanctuary jurisdictions. It breaks new ground by showing how the recent Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. NCAA helps sanctuary cities.
Commentators are right to suggest that Murphy v. NCAA will help sanctuary cities, but wrong to claim it is like to undermine federal laws restricting state taxes.
The Supreme Court's invalidation of a federal law preventing state legalization of sports gambling strengthens protection for state autonomy from the federal government.
The various lawsuits pitting the Trump administration against sanctuary jurisdictions has important implications for constitutional federalism that go beyond immigration policy.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
