because there's not enough evidence that the response would recur (which is what is required for an injunction, which is a forward-looking remedy).
A judge says the federal law has no constitutional basis and threatens First and Fourth Amendment rights.
Having a large market share may just mean that a company is really good at what it does.
U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn says the law bans firearms covered by the Second Amendment and is not supported by historical precedent.
A federal court recently said the Internet Archive is not protected by fair use doctrine.
A federal court denied them the right to sue—despite Congress enacting a law five decades ago specifically for situations like this one.
By prosecuting the website's founders, the government chilled free speech online and ruined lives.
But consumers will pay a price.
The state has been demanding that TV stations remove political ads in support of a reproductive freedom amendment on the ballot this year.
Priscilla Villarreal's case is about whether certain reporters have more robust free speech rights than others.
The film ties together years of reporting on a legal saga with broad implications for both free speech and sex work.
Why is making spirits for personal use any of the government’s business in the first place?
A handful of states use loopholes to get around a Supreme Court ruling that declared the practice unconstitutional.
The decision is a reminder that independent reporters are still protected by the same First Amendment as journalists in legacy media.
Plus: The Montana Supreme Court rescues zoning reform, and a new challenge to inclusionary zoning.
The Reason Foundation filed a FOIA lawsuit last year seeking reviews of deaths at two federal women's prisons with numerous allegations of medical neglect.
Democrats' aggressive antitrust agenda threatens to upend Google's ad tech business—and make U.S. markets less free.
Priscilla Villarreal, known as "Lagordiloca," is suing law enforcement for violating her First Amendment rights. She is appealing to the Supreme Court.
It's an insane ask for someone convicted of just one nonviolent offense.
The Edmondson Community Organization accrued a modest property tax debt. The group paid dearly for that.
Many circuit courts have said that law enforcement can hold your property for as long as they want. D.C.’s high court decided last week that’s unconstitutional.
The First Amendment case about a first-grader’s free speech rights is headed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Thus far, the courts have barred Curtrina Martin from asking a jury for damages. She is appealing to the Supreme Court.
When those on parole or probation are included, one out of every 47 adults is under “some form of correctional supervision.”
The decision shows that the Supreme Court has forced judges who like gun control to respect the Second Amendment anyway.
The Supreme Court is not as “extreme” or divided as it may seem.
Nina Jankowicz finds out the truth may hurt, but it isn’t lawsuit bait.
"In short, 'cruel and unusual' is not the same as 'harmful and unfair,'" the court wrote.
A federal judge rejected the government’s excuses for banning home production of liquor.
Officers should have known that handcuffing a compliant 10-year-old is unnecessary, the court ruled.
A federal appeals court ruled that the government is not immune from a breach-of-contract lawsuit filed by foreign students duped into enrolling into a fake school run by ICE.
The 5th Circuit ruled that the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it rejected applications from manufacturers of flavored nicotine e-liquids.
And the Supreme Court agrees to weigh in.
The doctrine makes it nearly impossible for victims of prosecutorial misconduct to get recourse.
Her concurrence is a reminder that the application of criminal law should not be infected by personal animus toward any given defendant.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way.
There is a great deal of panic surrounding the "extreme" nature of the current Court. But that is often not based in reality.
Paul Erlinger was sentenced to 15 years in prison based largely on a determination made by a judge—not a jury.
Chevron deference, a doctrine created by the Court in 1984, gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the meaning of various laws. But the justices may overturn that.
The plaintiffs are challenging the state's widespread surveillance, which it collects through over 600 cameras.
The justice's benign comments set off a lengthy news cycle and have been treated as a scandal by some in the media. Why?
The transit authority was sued after rejecting an ad that directed viewers to go to a website "to find out about the faith of our founders."
The ACLU, another polarizing organization, was willing to defend the NRA in court. That should tell you that some things aren't partisan.
Justin Pulliam's arrest and lawsuit once again demand we ask if "real" journalists are entitled to a different set of rights.
The Sixth Amendment was originally seen as vital to preserving liberty. Yet it has been consistently watered down.
Judge Carlton Reeves ripped apart the legal doctrine in his latest decision on the matter.
Prosecutor Ralph Petty was also employed as a law clerk—by the same judges he argued before.
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
