The Senate Is One Step Closer To Passing a 10-Year Moratorium on State AI Regulation
The Senate parliamentarian says the 10-year AI moratorium may be passed by a simple majority through the Senate's budget reconciliation process.
The Senate parliamentarian says the 10-year AI moratorium may be passed by a simple majority through the Senate's budget reconciliation process.
Although the appeals court said the president probably complied with the law he invoked to justify his California deployment, it emphasized that such decisions are subject to judicial review.
The ruling is the latest in a long line of court decisions striking down executive efforts to attach conditions to federal grants that were not approved by Congress.
The government's lawyer told a 9th Circuit panel the president's deployments are "unreviewable," so he need not even pretend to comply with the statute on which he is relying.
On its face, the law gives the president sweeping authority to deploy the military in response to domestic disorder.
An interesting tidbit from today's NYT profile of Justice Amy Coney Barrett
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer concluded that the president failed to comply with the statute he cited—and violated the 10th Amendment too.
In a federal lawsuit, California's governor argues that the president's assertion of control over "the State's militia" is illegal and unconstitutional.
Trump and the right are living out their fantasies of rewriting the awful summer of 2020.
Like it or not, Gonzales v. Raich remains good law, and federal prohibition is constitutional under current doctrine.
While there is no constitutional right to receive grants, the Constitution does bar grant conditions that undermine constitutional rights.
Middlebury professor Gary Winslett argues the South—not China—poached the Rust Belt’s manufacturing base by out-competing it on policy.
The decision is based on precedents in similar cases during Trump's first term.
The article covers state sanctuary policies, their constitutional basis, how they can constrain Trump's mass deportation efforts, and how Trump can try to get around them.
State Attorneys General appear more interested in lining up with their political tribe than they are in defending state interests.
Justice Thomas dissents from the Court's continued unwillingness to hear bills of complaint filed under the Court's original jurisdiction.
Voters overwhelmingly favored the new policy, which a former state legislator unsuccessfully tried to block.
Newsom is a prototypical modern progressive governor whose pro-democracy tour of Southern states evoked more mocking than fear.
If Musk is truly serious about fiscal discipline, he'll advise the president-elect to eschew many of the policies he promised on the campaign trail.
Although the framing is a transparent political ploy, it is reassuring to see that the vice president has not abandoned her opposition to the federal ban.
Democrats will live to regret doing this if they have the votes to do it.
He returned S.B. 961 to the California Senate for all the wrong reasons.
His new stance could encourage Vice President Kamala Harris to emphasize her opposition to federal marijuana prohibition.
It remains unclear whether either would do anything about that as president.
The court indicates the law would be constitutional so long as it does not claim to declare a federal law "invalid."
States cannot invalidate or refuse to recognize federal law.
If you want "local control" of land use, the best way to do it is let property owners decide how to use their property for themselves.
The book is the most extensive analysis to date of constitutional issues arising from the War on Drugs, and why the constitutional law largely failed to constrain its abuses.
The Democratic vice presidential nominee has a long record of supporting cannabis reform.
The presumptive Democratic nominee has a more liberal drug policy record than both the president and the Republican presidential nominee.
There’s less reason to fight when one-size-fits-all policies are replaced with local diversity.
A federal judge rejected the government’s excuses for banning home production of liquor.
A potentially important post-NFIB enumerated powers challenge.
The "most pro-life president in American history" cannot please hardline activists without alienating voters.
Fifth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
Fourth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
Third in a seris of guest-blogging posts.
Second in a series of guest-blogging posts.
First in a series of guest-blogging posts.
The book argues that the structural elements of the Constitution should be interpreted in a way that empowers the federal government to address collective action problems facing the states.
Does the National Labor Relations Board have jurisdiction over a medical marijuana dispensary's treatment of its employees?
I cover both liberal immigration sanctuaries and conservative gun sanctuaries, and the more general principles behind them.
Rescheduling does not resolve the conflict between federal pot prohibition and state rejection of that policy.
Contrary to the president's rhetoric, moving marijuana to Schedule III will leave federal pot prohibition essentially unchanged.
The decision addresses an important issue left open by the Supreme Court's decision reversing Roe v. Wade.
No technology exists today to enable railroads to comply with the state's diktat, which villainizes a mode of transportation that is actually quite energy efficient.
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