U.S. District Judge Richard Leon notes that Sen. Mark Kelly's comments about unlawful military orders were "unquestionably protected" by the First Amendment.
The commission has targeted the news rating company with onerous record demands and a merger condition aimed at cutting off its revenue.
Adrian Gonzales is on trial for acts of "omission" that prosecutors say amounted to 29 felony counts of child endangerment.
Presidents, legislators, and police officers were desperate to blame anyone but themselves.
The department's lawsuit notes that the prohibited firearms are "in common use" for "lawful purposes," meaning they are covered by the Second Amendment.
In addition to its symbolic significance, rescheduling the drug will facilitate research and provide tax relief to state-licensed cannabis suppliers.
The appeals court ruled that administrators violated Stuart Reges' First Amendment rights when they investigated and threatened to punish him for constitutionally protected speech.
This is Priscilla Villarreal’s second trip to the Supreme Court, which last year revived her First Amendment lawsuit.
The Justice Department's litigation positions are at odds with its avowed intent to protect Second Amendment rights.
Whatever the merits of climate tort suits (or lack thereof), the argument they are preempted does not hold up.
Congress justified that National Firearms Act of 1934 as a revenue measure—a rationale undermined by the repeal of taxes on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
Steven Duarte is one of several petitioners who are asking the justices to address the constitutionality of that absurdly broad gun ban.
On Thursday, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that echoed Donald Trump's claims against the Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer.
Elsid Aliaj says the seizure violated state law and the Second Amendment.
Another reply to the former attorney general on climate litigation that may end up in the Supreme Court.
That understanding of a familiar anti-Biden slogan hinges on the political message it communicates.
The settlement, which followed Sylvia Gonzalez's victory at the Supreme Court, also includes remedial First Amendment training for city officials.
The cases give the justices a chance to address a constitutionally dubious policy that disarms peaceful Americans.
The president claims The Wall Street Journal inflicted "billions of dollars" in reputational damage by confirming a well-established relationship.
A federal judge cleared the way for Jennifer Heath Box's lawsuit against the cops who misidentified her as a fugitive, despite a "mountain of evidence" that they had the wrong woman.
The ban's supporters, whose motivation is plainly protectionist, claim they are defending freedom by restricting it.
The appeals court blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under that law "because we find no invasion or predatory incursion."
Donald Trump's claim that the appeals court ruled against him for partisan or ideological reasons is hard to take seriously.
Seven judges agreed that the president's assertion of unlimited authority to tax imports is illegal and unconstitutional.
A recent federal appeals court decision underlines the importance of that safeguard.
The decision overturns a staggering "disgorgement" order that was based on dubious math.
The appeals court concluded that the government had failed to show that policy is consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The 2016 brief defended the understanding of the 14th Amendment that the president wants to overturn.
There’s no historical precedent for trying to ration constitutionally protected rights.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is seeking an injunction that would protect noncitizens at The Stanford Daily from arrest and removal because of their published work.
Whatever the merits of this particular defamation claim, the president has a long history of abusing the legal system to punish constitutionally protected speech.
The Cato Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance urge the Federal Circuit to extend the logic of a decision against the president's far-reaching import taxes.
The government’s lawyers also say that supposedly nonexistent policy is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
The company's surrender to Trump's extortion vindicates his strategy of using frivolous litigation and his presidential powers to punish constitutionally protected speech.
Tellingly, the president avoided defending his dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment at the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is considering whether the president properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.
Alexandra Weaver argued that she could not reasonably have been expected to know her actions were unconstitutional.
The appeals court concluded that the restriction impinges on the right to arms and is not consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
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.
Cops should not be free to forgo the modicum of care required to make sure they’re in the right place.
Melynda Vincent is asking the justices to decide whether it's constitutional to disarm people based on nothing more than a nonviolent criminal conviction.
Penny McCarthy is suing the federal agents who insisted she was a fugitive despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Even if the president was joking in both cases, he already has used his powers to punish people whose views offend him.
In a federal lawsuit, California's governor argues that the president's assertion of control over "the State's militia" is illegal and unconstitutional.
Michael Mendenhall wants the Supreme Court to reconsider a precedent that allows home invasions based on nothing but hearsay.
The president's crusade against attorneys whose work offends him, which defies the First Amendment and undermines the right to counsel, has provoked several judicial rebukes.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks