When Joe Biden Tried To Paint Clarence Thomas as a Crazy Libertarian
The episode reflects poorly on Biden.
The episode reflects poorly on Biden.
A bust of the Dred Scott author stands in the old Supreme Court chambers in the capitol.
SCOTUS is the least democratic branch. Is that a bad thing?
A surprisingly agreeable chat on originalism, the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts and other things.
"Supreme Court jurisprudence...is heavily weighted against you," an appeals judge told state prosecutors last week.
The House voted to recognize the District of Columbia as a state, but many obstacles still lie ahead.
Can the government compel speech? For Supreme Court justices, that seems to depend on the content of that speech.
Fifth and final post in a series based on my new book "Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom"
"The fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution," Thomas writes, should be "applied equally to all citizens."
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.
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