Some States Restrict Abortion After Dobbs, Others Rush To Protect Access
Plus: What overturning Roe means for Republicans' future, court halts ban of Juul products, and more...
Plus: What overturning Roe means for Republicans' future, court halts ban of Juul products, and more...
Although the chief justice's incrementalism did not sway his colleagues, his observations about the meaning of a "right to choose" could be relevant in state legislatures.
This makes it likely, though not certain, that the Supreme Court will strike down such laws if states enact them.
Most states are unlikely to enact bans, but 22 either have them already or probably will soon.
With its unnecessarily complicated and contentious provisions, the MORE Act received only three Republican votes in April.
Questions about the scope of federal power will remain.
Language in the American Rescue Plan Act prohibits states from using the funds "directly or indirectly" to offset lost revenues from tax cuts.
Without citing any constitutional authority to dictate state abortion policies, the bill would have overridden regulations that have been upheld or have yet to be tested.
The answer is probably "no." But the federal government could more easily ban such transactions.
The constitutional scholar on abortion, Sam Alito, and the future of federalism
For libertarians who see unborn babies as innocent rights-bearing individuals, reducing the number of lives ended by abortion brings us closer to our credo.
Atlantic writer Jerusalem Demsas argues that blue states can't give "refuge" to people fleeing abortion restrictions if they don't cut back on zoning restrictions that lead to sky-high housing costs.
The answer to this important question is highly uncertain. I tentatively predict a significant, but still modest, increase in abortion-driven migration.
Fewer Americans would be forced to live under a legal regime, imposed from on high, that is contrary to their convictions on a matter of life and death.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is probably "yes." But that precedent might not hold, thanks in part to Clarence Thomas.
The president’s COVID-19 adviser embodies the arrogance of technocrats who are sure they know what’s best for us.
The Biden administration's main priority seems to be leaving the agency's authority vague enough to allow future interventions.
Chuck Schumer seems less interested in achieving cannabis reform than in making political hay from his inevitable failure.
Nikki Fried, a Democrat, is suing the Biden administration, arguing that the policy violates the Second Amendment and a congressional spending rider.
The highly dubious lawsuit filed by four blue states against the the law capping federal tax deductions for state and local taxes is now truly dead in the water.
An utterly meritless suit ends not with a bang, but a whimper.
Instead of building on Republican support for federalism, they seem determined to alienate potential allies.
Reflections from Robert Leider on the oral argument in Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety.
It includes commentary by housing policy specialist Emily Hamilton (Mercatus Center), and economist Filipe Campante (Johns Hopkins University).
Such laws, which allow redundant prosecutions based on defendants' bigoted beliefs, supposedly are authorized by the amendment that banned slavery.
The suit deserves to fail for much the same reasons as Trump-era attacks on immigration sanctuaries.
"Obviously we could have used the money, but at what cost?,” says Sheila Hemphill, an activist and lobbyist from Brady, Texas
The article challenges longstanding conventional wisdom. It is coauthored with political scientist Michael Dichio (University of Utah).
His judicial philosophy emphasized promotion of democracy, a theme in tension with his emphasis on the need for deference to expertise.
The crux of the argument is the distinction "between occupational risk and risk more generally."
The article challenges longstanding conventional wisdom claiming that judicial review of democratically enacted laws is at odds with popular political choice.
The justice's reference to a national "police power" raised some eyebrows.
Most of the justices appear to be skeptical of the argument that the agency has the power it is asserting.
How foot voting can expand political freedom for Americans, particularly the poor and disadvantaged.
Recent articles in the Texas Monthy and the New York Times provide some useful insight on why Texas has been gaining migrants at such a high rate.
We cover many issues related to the book, as well as freedom of movement more generally - both domestic and international.
Now available on Amazon, after a supply chain delay.
Flagging some interesting blog posts on the question.
Absent Roe, current Supreme Court precedent likely gives the federal government considerable power to either restrict or protect abortion rights. But that precedent could potentially be limited in ways advocated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an unlikely potential savior of abortion rights!
The justices may find it difficult to uphold Mississippi's abortion ban without overturning Roe v. Wade.
Rep. Nancy Mace is touting "a framework which allows states to make their own decisions on cannabis."
The appeals court said the rule, which was published on Friday, raises "grave statutory and constitutional issues."
Nuisance claims may not be a particularly effective way to address the problem of climate change, but federal law does not preempt state common law nuisance claims seeking compensatory damages.
The post focuses attention on an aspect of federalism that is often overlooked in current law and policy debates.
In a prior case challenging the law, the 5th Circuit said state judges were not appropriate defendants.
Four blue states' misguided legal challenge to the cap on the SALT tax deduction suffered a well-deserved defeat in the Second Circuit. The case is likely over.
A unanimous panel makes quick work of meritless legal claims.