Trump's Bump Stock Ban Is Under Fire From His Own Judicial Appointees
This unilateral executive action has been scrutinized by both Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr.
This unilateral executive action has been scrutinized by both Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and U.S. District Judge Brantley Starr.
"Although California's guidelines place restrictions on places of worship," Roberts wrote, "those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
Several courts have invalidated elements of state shelter-in-place orders. Constitutional law Professor Josh Blackman says that the longer they continue, the less legal they become.
"We have long interpreted the Georgia Constitution as protecting a right to work in one's chosen profession free from unreasonable government interference."
The anti-prostitution pledge is unconstitutional when applied to U.S. nonprofits. But the feds say it's still OK to compel speech from these groups' foreign affiliates.
The federal courts start to grapple with COVID-19 shutdown orders.
Not everything that states do in the name of protecting public health is consistent with the Constitution.
Courts so far have not been inclined to ask that question.
Plus: Family Dollar guard murdered over mask enforcement, doctors see "multisystem inflammatory syndrome" in kids with COVID-19, and more...
Infectious disease, public health, and the Constitution
Plus: Justin Amash seeking L.P. nomination, pandemic hasn't halted FDA war on vaping, and more
While denying Donald Trump's dictatorial impulses, William Barr notes that public health emergencies do not give governments unlimited powers.
A lost volume of American history finds the light of day.
The president contemplates a sweeping exercise of executive authority.
The president again insisted that the federal government can open the country by fiat. It cannot.
"Delaying abortions by weeks does nothing to further the State's interest in combatting COVID-19," they say.
Plus: Signal will leave the U.S. market if EARN IT passes, Justin Amash blasts Michigan shutdown orders, and more...
Will the Supreme Court question the underpinnings of the modern administrative state?
"Presidential emergency action documents” concocted under prior administrations purport to give him such authority, according to a New York Times op-ed.
“The federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself.”
Politicians and the public are alarmingly willing to violate civil liberties in the name of fighting the epidemic.
"These uncompensated seizures violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
The government is perfectly capable of counting heads in a less-intrusive and more-hygienic way.
Plus: civic dynamism on display, Justice Department embraces home detainment of federal prisoners, and more...
Congress should loudly and unanimously reject this insanity.
Weighing the state and local response to COVID-19
The extent of state and federal quarantine powers is surprisingly unsettled.
The legal battle over immigration, federalism, and executive power heats up.
The argument requires several controversial assumptions and leaps of logic.
If the Court is going to abolish the 20th century remedies, can we at least have the 19th century remedies back?
The justices heard oral arguments this week in United States v. Sineneng-Smith.
Under New York's rules, licensed pistol and revolver owners were not allowed to leave home with their handguns unless they were traveling to or from a shooting range.
Americans are so locked into their political sides that many of them seem willing to cast aside some of the nation's long-established constitutional protections.
What’s at stake in Torres v. Madrid
What’s at stake in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
From Louisiana State University law professor Ed Richards.
While some senators seemed to endorse that misbegotten claim, others explicitly rejected it.
What’s at stake in Michigan v. Wood
The framers of the Constitution were quite right that wars should be difficult to start and easy to end.
He says "criminal-like behavior akin to treason or bribery" is enough, even if it's not "a technical crime with all the elements."
The article explains why the Supreme Court was justified in overruling longstanding precedent in this important recent constitutional property rights case.
The president’s lawyers argue that abuse of power is not impeachable unless it breaks the law.
The Supreme Court agrees to hear two cases on the scope of presidential elector discretion
The Government Accountability Office says Trump's spending delay was illegal.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks