Even If Trump's Birthday Letter to Jeffrey Epstein Is 'Fake,' How Is It Defamatory?
The president claims The Wall Street Journal inflicted "billions of dollars" in reputational damage by confirming a well-established relationship.
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.
A federal judge blocks the administration's "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," which targeted foreign students who had no criminal records.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Garcia rejected the argument that the officers "recklessly created the need to apply deadly force by going to the wrong address."
The decision revives a lawsuit against a Texas officer who shot a driver after endangering himself by jumping onto a moving car.
Briefs urging the Supreme Court to stay injunctions against the order challenge "the conventional wisdom" about the meaning of an 1898 decision interpreting the 14th Amendment.
"It is unthinkable that a person in a free society could be snatched from the street, imprisoned, and threatened with deportation for expressing an opinion the government dislikes," says FIRE.
The president’s sweeping import levies have no basis in the statute he cites.
A new ACLU lawsuit argues that the government still is not giving alleged gang members the "notice" required by a Supreme Court order.
Two of his targets are seeking permanent injunctions against the president's blatantly unconstitutional executive orders.
The president has launched a multifaceted crusade against speech that offends him.
The president's lawyers also conflate fraud with defamation, misconstrue the commercial speech doctrine, and assert that false speech is not constitutionally protected.
Even if Laredo cops punished Priscilla Villarreal for constitutionally protected speech, the appeals court says, they would be protected by qualified immunity.
The Trump administration says it is shameful even to suggest that immigration agents could make such errors.
Conservatives are picking up the unconstitutional weapons that intolerant progressives have deployed against them.
As a federal judge, Maryanne Trump Barry said the provision is unconstitutionally vague. That's especially problematic when it is used to punish speech.
To justify the immediate deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members, the president is invoking a rarely used statute that does not seem to apply in this context.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish emphasizes that religious freedom must protect "unpopular or unfamiliar religious groups" as well as "popular or familiar ones."
The 9th Circuit revived a First Amendment lawsuit by Lars Jensen, who says his community college punished him for complaining about dumbed-down courses.
The Supreme Court will decide whether this threat to the Second Amendment is legally viable.