A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House
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."
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.
The president's portrayal of journalism he does not like as consumer fraud is legally frivolous and blatantly unconstitutional.
A driver who was acquitted of drunk driving joins a class action lawsuit provoked by a bribery scheme that went undetected for decades.
Elon Musk, the president's cost-cutting czar, has a habit of overpromising and underdelivering.
To settle with the Securities and Exchange Commission, you must swear silence.
The full transcript shows the president's complaints about the editing of the interview are not just wildly hyperbolic and legally groundless. They are demonstrably false.
The company is worried that the president's complaints about a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris could block a pending merger.
The president-elect frivolously claims that J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register owe him damages because of an erroneous preelection poll.
Voters overwhelmingly favored the new policy, which a former state legislator unsuccessfully tried to block.
The president-elect's lawsuit against The Des Moines Register is a patently frivolous and constitutionally dubious attempt to intimidate the press.
The host of This Week repeatedly and inaccurately asserted that Trump had been "found liable for rape."
A board employee and a local reporter were arrested on the same bogus charge of divulging nonexistent grand jury secrets.
U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn says the law bans firearms covered by the Second Amendment and is not supported by historical precedent.
The Republican presidential candidate argues that CBS and The Washington Post broke the law by covering the election in ways he did not like.
A trucker lost his job because he tested positive for marijuana after consuming a supposedly THC-free CBD tincture.
Mason Murphy says Officer Michael Schmitt violated his rights by punishing him for constitutionally protected speech.
The Supreme Court will review a 5th Circuit decision that let the officer off the hook without considering the recklessness that turned a routine traffic stop into a deadly encounter.
By targeting "persons undermining peace, security, and stability," the plaintiffs argue, the president is threatening to punish people for opposing a two-state solution.
A federal judge rejected the government’s excuses for banning home production of liquor.
The majority and the dissenters agree that the drug was "central" to "the opioid crisis," even though there is little evidence to support that thesis.
Facing an opponent who has been credibly described as a sexual predator, Biden instead emphasizes Trump's cover-up of a consensual encounter.
An ideologically diverse mix of individuals and organizations supports a Texas journalist who was arrested for asking questions.
The Institute for Justice has launched a project to reform land use regulation.
School officials falsely accused the boys of posing for a photo in blackface.
Columbia law professor David Pozen recalls the controversy provoked by early anti-drug laws and the hope inspired by subsequent legal assaults on prohibition.
Under a legal theory endorsed by the 5th Circuit, Martin Luther King Jr. could have been liable for other people’s violence.
The justices established guidelines for determining whether that is true in any particular case.
Neither Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg nor New York Attorney General Letitia James can explain exactly who was victimized by the dishonesty they cite.
Plus: A listener asks if the editors have criteria for what constitutes a good law.
The law that Attorney General Letitia James used to sue the former president does not require proof that anyone was injured by his financial dishonesty.
An analysis of appeals involving the doctrine finds that less than a quarter "fit the popular conception of police accused of excessive force."
A federal judge allowed a lawsuit against the officers to proceed, finding evidence of several constitutional violations.
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