Mitchell Berman on Conditional Federal Grants and the Constitution
While there is no constitutional right to receive grants, the Constitution does bar grant conditions that undermine constitutional rights.
While there is no constitutional right to receive grants, the Constitution does bar grant conditions that undermine constitutional rights.
Like that in the similar case filed by Liberty Justice Center and myself, this one indicated judicial skepticism of Trump's claims to virtually unlimited power to impose tariffs.
It's the best shield when the executive branch tries to strong-arm private universities.
A federal judge blocks the administration's "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," which targeted foreign students who had no criminal records.
Trump’s firing of a federal agency head may soon spell doom for a New Deal era precedent that limited presidential power.
Did mainstream conservatives and libertarians lose a generation of young men to the reactionary right?
Whether due to tariffs or because they are made in America, the result would be much higher prices.
Criticisms of the president's alleged flip-flopping on gain-of-function research funding miss some key context.
The "one big, beautiful bill" keeps the corporate welfare that Republicans claim to hate.
Can Trump do that, and what would it mean?
The lesson from the Moody's credit downgrade is that the U.S. cannot borrow its way to prosperity.
I was interviewed by Brittany Lewis of Forbes.
I will be speaking, along with Cato Institute scholar Walter Olson.
Plus: Lab-grown meat fears, DOJ inquiry into Cuomo, Kristi Noem's polygraphs, and more...
That logic implausibly assumes presidents have the power to curtail substance abuse by attacking the drug supply.
A new Cato Institute study by David Bier presents the most extensive available evidence on these points.
Stephen Miller's trial balloon about abrogating habeas corpus in immigration cases shows how any libertarian with pragmatic intelligence should reject so-called "libertarian" arguments for strict immigration laws.
The 1866 debate over birthright citizenship included a debate over immigration.
Plus: Tim Dillon takes on the establishment, Chicago's racist hiring strategies, train fetishes, and more...
In a 2-1 ruling, the Court ruled Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act cannot supersede a settlement barring deportation of a group of migrants. One judge also held the AEA was invoked illegally.
Plus: A listener asks if the economic inequality data is bad.
Kovarsky and Rave defend the use of class actions in AEA habeas cases. Vladeck highlights the significance of the Supreme Court's grant of an injunction to a "putative class" of AEA detainees.
On the bright side, at least Trump finally admitted his tariffs are, indeed, paid by Americans.
The Administration isn't wrong to admit white South African migrants. But it is wrong to exclude all other refugees, including many fleeing far worse discrimination and oppression.
The brief is on behalf of the Cato Institute and myself.
The ruling held that migrants detained under AEA had not been given adequate notice of their potential deportation. It also reflects the Court's growing distrust of the Trump Administration.
A lot of conservatives are falling prey to the same snowflakery they criticize.
Nationwide illegality by the federal government requires a nationwide remedy.
Make dishwashers great again.
The president's executive order on birthright citizenship had its first test before the Supreme Court.
No wonder the Democrats are having a young male voter problem!
The article explains why these claims to emergency powers are illegal and dangerous, and how to stop them.
The administration shows no coherent commitment to free market principles and is in fact actively undermining them.
In a badly flawed decision, a federal district court ruled that Trump can invoke the AEA because the Tren de Aragua drug gang's activities amount to a "predatory incursion."
The text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment run counter to Trump’s executive order.
Greg Sargent of the New Republic interviewed me.
The president’s speech in Saudi Arabia promised a new course for U.S. policy in the Middle East. Can he deliver?
There is no question that Rose defiantly broke the rules, but we love our baseball characters, warts and all.
"If this is the end of my American dream," says one small business owner, "I'm going to go down swinging."
Trump rightly decries the "absurd and unjust" consequences of proliferating regulatory crimes.
Outcomes are hard to predict. But the judges seemed skeptical of the government's claim that Trump has virtually unlimited authority to impose tariffs.
Stephen Miller's understanding of the Constitution is dubious for several reasons.
The president hopes to introduce even more government intervention into health care.
Plus: Yetis, The Seat, and a political letter that will make your eyes roll.
Briefs urging the Supreme Court to stay injunctions against the order challenge "the conventional wisdom" about the meaning of an 1898 decision interpreting the 14th Amendment.
Plus: A listener asks which domestic policy changes could realistically boost U.S. manufacturing without raising costs for consumers.
Elon Musk promised $2 trillion in cuts but delivered only a tiny portion of that total. We asked seven policy experts to explain what he got wrong.
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