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 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.
The federal courts are supposed to be a bulwark against presidential overreach, not a rubber stamp.
Despite some notable wins, the president-elect's overall track record shows he cannot count on a conservative Supreme Court to side with him.
The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit a widely reviled decision that invited such eminent domain abuses.
Contrary to progressive criticism, curtailing bureaucratic power is not about protecting "the wealthy and powerful."
The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law allows or requires.
The decision rejects a system in which the agency imposes civil penalties after investigating people and validating its own allegations.
Although critics say the Court’s current approach is unworkable, it has been undeniably effective at defeating constitutionally dubious gun regulations.
Some thoughts on the most important issue in Relentless and Loper Bright.
The justices seem inclined to revise or ditch a 1984 precedent that requires deference to executive agencies' statutory interpretations.
Excessive judicial deference gives administrative agencies a license to rewrite the law in their favor.
The furious response to a seemingly modest reform reflects a broader dispute about the role of courts in a democracy.
The appeals court judge argued that the Israeli Supreme Court had usurped the role of legislators.
Opponents of the reforms favored by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition should acknowledge the threat posed by unconstrained majority rule.
A new opinion concludes Ohio courts need not defer to agency interpretations. The justices are not unanimous, but no justice writes in favor of deference.
By giving powerful law enforcement officials absolute immunity from civil liability, the Supreme Court leaves their victims with no recourse.
The article challenges longstanding conventional wisdom claiming that judicial review of democratically enacted laws is at odds with popular political choice.
"Super Deference and Heightened Scrutiny" forthcoming in the Florida Law Review
Decisions that progressives don't like are not necessarily a sign that something has gone horribly wrong.
They argue that courts should engage in "normal," not specially deferential judicial review of coronavirus emergency measures.
Who will rein in the ever-expanding administrative state?
In his new memoir, the retired justice seeks to justify his awful eminent domain ruling.
Constitutional law could be improved by taking account of the principle that "with great power, comes great responsibility."
It appears that Justice Neil Gorsuch is far from the only one who questions the wisdom of Chevron deference and other findings from a new survey of federal judges.
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
