A handful of law firms are behind a spike in class-action lawsuits claiming consumers are harmed by opaque, half-full macaroni boxes and "all natural" fiber supplements.
A former guidance counselor served six years of a 25-year sentence thanks to a public defender's incompetence.
Even if Trump did declassify those records, the 11th Circuit says, he "has not identified any reason that he is entitled to them."
In any case, that issue does not seem relevant under the statutes that the FBI cited in its search warrant.
Social media companies are eager to appease the government by suppressing disfavored speech.
Notwithstanding federal pot prohibition, the appeals court says, the requirement violated the Commerce Clause's implicit prohibition of anti-competitive interstate trade barriers.
Corporate law profs disagree on the merits of Twitter's lawsuit to force Elon Musk to follow through with his offer to buy the company.
Several state supreme courts already have recognized the right to terminate a pregnancy. Will more states join the list?
The lawsuit over Timpa's deadly prone restraint, initially blocked by qualified immunity, was revived by the 5th Circuit.
Nikki Fried, a Democrat, is suing the Biden administration, arguing that the policy violates the Second Amendment and a congressional spending rider.
Clarifying the agency's authority could impede future power grabs.
San Francisco and Los Angeles insist in suit that likely tens of millions have been illegitimately squeezed from small businesses by ADA plaintiffs without proper legal standing.
A ruling in a dispute over emails sought by the January 6 committee agrees that Trump's actions likely violated two federal laws.
The officer used a "pain compliance maneuver" to force information from the boy's sister, who was recording the encounter.
Although a Texas Supreme Court ruling ended the main challenge to the law, other cases could ultimately block its enforcement.
The decision allows Smartmatic to proceed with its defamation lawsuit against Fox, two anchors, and Rudy Giuliani.
The former Trump campaign lawyer, who is fighting sanctions against her, says the claims she made in her Michigan lawsuit "perhaps" were true.
Proving that claim requires more than reckless rhetoric, which is constitutionally protected.
The argument hinges largely on what makes an emergency standard "necessary."
Gavin Newsom is exploring legislation to authorize private civil actions against people who sell "assault weapons" or gun kits.
The Court allowed claims against health care regulators to proceed, but that will not prevent the private civil actions authorized by the law.
District Court Judge David Peeples focused on the law's "unique and unprecedented" enforcement mechanism rather than abortion rights.
The appeals court is skeptical of the claim that the Texas governor's order illegally discriminates against people with disabilities.
Gov. Greg Abbott attacks First Amendment rights in the name of defending them.
The South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the ballot initiative violated the "single subject" rule for constitutional amendments.
Restrictions on pain medication have undermined patient care while making drug use more lethal.
The government argues that the 5th Circuit erred in concluding that the rule "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority."
The newspaper wrongly implies that press freedom is limited to "real" journalists.
Undertreatment of pain is a real problem, and bona fide patients rarely become addicted to their medication.
A unanimous three-judge panel concludes that the decree "grossly exceeds OSHA's statutory authority."
A federal judge concluded that the Texas governor's ban on mask mandates illegally discriminated against students with disabilities.
Is the COVID-19 virus an "agent"?
The justices rejected a broad definition of "public nuisance" that would cover the manufacture of pain medication.
The appeals court said the rule, which was published on Friday, raises "grave statutory and constitutional issues."
Even justices who take a dim view of Roe v. Wade recognize the law’s chilling implications.
A California judge said the four jurisdictions that filed the lawsuit failed to prove a "public nuisance" or "false advertising."
When overly broad patents and the TSA clash, there are no heroes.
The experience with the Texas Heartbeat Act offers a preview of what that means.
The failure of legal challenges obscures an ongoing scientific debate.
S.B. 8 allows lawsuits against people who perform prohibited abortions even if they relied on a court's determination that the law is unconstitutional.
In a prior case challenging the law, the 5th Circuit said state judges were not appropriate defendants.
In the first two lawsuits filed under S.B. 8, all of the parties seem to think enforcement of the law should be blocked.
Alan Braid says he broke the law, which prohibits the vast majority of abortions, to make sure it would be tested in court.
Meanwhile, the threat posed by the lawsuits that S.B. 8 authorizes has dramatically curtailed access to abortion in Texas.
S.B. 8 relies on litigation tricks that conservatives have long condemned as a threat to the rule of law.
Because the Supreme Court so far has not intervened, post-heartbeat abortions are now illegal in the Lone Star State.
A federal judge concluded that Powell and eight other pro-Trump lawyers who challenged Michigan's election results made frivolous arguments and treated evidence recklessly.
(You don't really have to shut up, but here's my money.)
Yes, I'll donate to Reason right now! I'll keep my money today, thanks
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanks
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
Reason is the antidote to the same old stale take on ideas that actually matter to me.
I’ll support Free Minds and Free Markets! Not interested
Reason pushes me to think critically with facts and analysis that shape my perspective and amplify the ideas I care about.
I want to make a donation so that my voice can be heard! Not today
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
It’s hard to trust the media these days, especially when everyone is pushing a partisan agenda. Reason stands for my right to make my own choices.
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No, I’ll follow the partisan herd
Reason’s fearless, principled journalism keeps me sane in a crazy world.
Making a donation to Reason right now will keep me from losing my mind! No, I like being mad
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
Support the voices that advocate for your freedom. Donate to Reason today!
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! 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