The case was the subject of a Supreme Court ruling in which the power of eminent domain prevailed over state sovereign immunity.
The article explains how expanding opportunities for foot voting can enhance political choice, help the poor and disadvantaged, and reduce the dangers of political polarization.
The president seems determined to anoint the agency’s director as the nation’s COVID-19 dictator, no matter what the law says.
The secretary of education argues that federal law makes the CDC's COVID-19 guidelines for schools mandatory.
Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer is embracing a sensible approach to marijuana reform.
The Senate majority leader's racial rhetoric and overly prescriptive approach make an already iffy effort even more quixotic.
We can thank judges who were prepared to enforce constitutional limits on public health powers.
The mandate prevents bars states receiving federal funds under the Act from enacting tax cuts that are "directly or indirectly" offset by the grants.
In a careful ruling, Judge Cole concludes Ohio made its case, and enjoins enforcement of the mandate against Ohio.
Brett Kavanaugh, who provided a crucial fifth vote, said he agrees that the CDC does not have the authority to override rental contracts.
The agency’s legal defense of its eviction moratorium implies that it has vast powers to order Americans around.
The president supports the ban, and his fellow Democrats do not seem serious about attracting Republican support for repealing it.
The Court clarified that the challenged policy need only be a "de facto final" decision, and that property owners are not required to exhaust all possible state bureaucratic procedures before filing a federal takings case. The Court also emphasized that Takings Clause property rights have "full-fledged constitutional status."
But the issue of state taxation of remote workers is likely to recur.
In an opinion respecting the denial of certiorari, Justice Thomas suggests it may be time to reconsider Gonzales v. Raich
The anti-commandeering principle serves causes favored by both the right and the left.
If states are to have different marijuana laws and policies, federal reform is necessary.
It responds to a critique of the Supreme Court's major property rights ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott, by Profs. Stewart Sterk and Michael Pollack.
Biden's Justice Department has some problems with this.
Conservative states seeking to protect gun rights are copying the tactics used by liberal immigration sanctuaries.
The puzzle of marijuana's Schedule I status invites a reconsideration of the agency's vast discretion to decide which substances should be prohibited.
The MORE Act, which was reintroduced today, is full of contentious provisions that go far beyond repealing federal prohibition.
Participants include Prof. Edward Rubin (Vanderbilt), Prof. Carolyn Shapiro (Chicago-Kent), Ilya Shapiro (Cato Institute), and myself.
A federal court issues a ruling against the requirement that states receiving stimulus funds are not allowed to raise taxes. Meanwhile, the Treasury Department issues an "interim final rule" intended to limit the scope of the mandate - and protect it against legal challenge.
The online event features panels on a wide range of issues related to executive power, including one on federalism where I will be one of the participants.
Revived federalism is a start, but it doesn’t go far enough.
As a recent Washington Post article explains, the combination of low taxes, job opportunities, and few restrictions on building new housing are crucial to the state's success. Both major parties have much to learn from Texas' experience.
Under current law, marijuana users who possess firearms are committing a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Montana's new law refusing to help enforce federal gun restrictions is similar to liberal "sanctuary cities'" refusal to assist in federal immigration enforcement. Both are protected by Constitution.
Conservative state legislators are taking a page from the playbook of pro-immigration activists and the marijuana legalization movement.
While overturning Roe v. Wade would lead to new restrictions in many states, legal access to abortion would be unaffected in most of the country.
Joe Biden, meanwhile, supports continued national prohibition, maintaining an untenable conflict between state and federal laws.
In both situations, the grant conditions in question were not clearly and unambiguously authorized by Congress.
There are now two district court decisions ruling against the moratorium and two upholding it.
The national eviction moratorium and Arizona’s business restrictions were based on dubious assertions of authority.
Two district court decisions have upheld the moratorium against various challenges, while one has ruled against it. The legal battle may be just beginning.
On the inconsistency between choice of law cases and interstate sovereign immunity cases
The Supreme Court did not resolve the case today, but did take the noteworthy step of asking for the views of the federal government.
The case was filed directly in the Supreme Court under its "original jurisdiction" over cases filed by one state against another. It could have important implications for the future of federalism.
The article adapts and expands some of the ideas developed in my recent book "Free to Move," and is now available for free download on SSRN.
Partisans who abandon constitutional principles because they prove inconvenient are in for a rude surprise when the other team wins.
The president acknowledges that there are limits to executive power, even during a public health emergency.
Let people join with the like-minded to reject officials and laws that don’t suit them and to construct systems that do.
A comparison of Texas and California suggests that legal edicts matter less than The New York Times thinks.
Cruz plunged into the constitutional abyss while Rand Paul stepped back, refusing to sacrifice democracy and the rule of law.
Centralization makes sense only if you ignore differences in local conditions—and trust the feds to make the right choices.
By his own account, the Texas senator is committed to defending a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully.
Under punitive federalism, localities refuse dictates from above while state and federal officials retaliate.
