The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded some state challenges to the COVID relief bill were not justiciable, but reaches the merits in one case and finds the law lacking.
The deal includes several amendments to the original draft legislation that are unlikely to have much substantive effect.
Participants include Daniel Farber, Keith Whittington, Cristina Rodriguez, Lisa Heinzerling, and myself, among others.
Out-of-state and self-managed abortions pose daunting challenges for pro-life legislators.
The president's mass pardon does not extend to pot suppliers, and his rescheduling plans won't make marijuana a legal medicine.
GOP governors' ploy highlights the value of giving states the power to issue their own migration visas. It can simultaneously ease labor shortages, reduce disorder at the border, enable more migrants to escape poverty and oppression, and help restore the original meaning of the Constitution.
The problem is the Court's ultra-broad interpretation of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices might cut that back.
The senator's avowed devotion to federalism is no match for his political ambitions.
The Republican senator improbably claims his bill is authorized by the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause.
Notwithstanding federal pot prohibition, the appeals court says, the requirement violated the Commerce Clause's implicit prohibition of anti-competitive interstate trade barriers.
Gun control advocates may embrace the 10th Amendment.
Five Circuits have considered, and rejected, fossil fuel efforts to get state-law tort and nuisance claims removed to federal court. Will their luck change in the Supreme Court?
We won't know the answer for some time. I suspect the drain will be relatively small, if we focus on abortion bans, as such. But it may get larger if anti-abortion laws end up having substantial negative side-effects on other activities.
If all of the ballot initiatives succeed, pot will be legal in 25 states.
The Justice Department says that policy is rational and consistent with the right to keep and bear arms.
I am one of the relatively few people who think the Court got both cases right.
Political scientist David Leal explains why conservatives should reject efforts to compel states and localities to help enforce federal laws these jurisdictions oppose.
The Senate majority leader's 296-page bill would compound the barriers to successful legalization.
A prominent academic expert on both same-sex marriage and full faith and credit weighs in.
Does the bipartisan act protecting same-sex marriage run afoul of constitutional federalism principles? The answer is definitely not with respect to one of its provisions, and probably not with respect to the other.
Several state supreme courts already have recognized the right to terminate a pregnancy. Will more states join the list?
Justice Breyer consistently resisted conservative efforts to constrain federal power, so his opinion in Torres is a fitting swan song.
National legislation and extraterritorial application of state laws are inconsistent with the local leeway that the Constitution protects.
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).
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
