Can Trump Order Congress Home and Unilaterally Fill Vacancies Via the Recess Appointment Power?
The president contemplates a sweeping exercise of executive authority.
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.
It's crucial to get the constitutional text and history straight.
Is the Rule of Law a Law of Rules or a Law of Law? Some conservatives seem to prefer the former. Should they?
The legal basis for such a ruling is hard to find.
Plus: Tarriffs are killing U.S. wine, Vermont bill would ban cell phones for kids, and more...
The former press secretary thinks abiding by the Constitution would be the worst thing for America right now.
Plus: Rand Paul says White House's war-powers arguments are "absurd," the Cato Institute wants Congress to investigate the FBI, and more...
Gig workers and companies are suing over a California law, AB 5, that criminalizes their continued employment.
The shifting understanding of the requirement to buy health insurance elevates form above substance.
Plus: States sue to stop Equal Rights Amendment, French sex workers take prostitution laws to E.U. court of human rights, and more...
Her lobbying tax proposal is pseudo-policy, a veneer of wonky seriousness over dubious populist dogma.
The greatest threat to protections for our freedom may be people's fear that people who disagree with them are exercising their rights.