Sotomayor Is Right: The Supreme Court Should Reevaluate Absolute Immunity for Prosecutors
The doctrine makes it nearly impossible for victims of prosecutorial misconduct to get recourse.
The doctrine makes it nearly impossible for victims of prosecutorial misconduct to get recourse.
Her concurrence is a reminder that the application of criminal law should not be infected by personal animus toward any given defendant.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way.
There is a great deal of panic surrounding the "extreme" nature of the current Court. But that is often not based in reality.
Recent remarks at Harvard may be a preview of what is to come.
Public calls continue for Justice Sotomayor to step down so that President Biden can name her replacement before the election.
Some liberals and progressives think Justice Sotomayor should retire this year to ensure a Democratic President names her replacement.
Ethics allegations have been raised against Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Sonia Sotomayor. Both sides have retreated into whataboutism.
Criticizing the law by calling for people to break it is an American tradition.
The Supreme Court justice seemed willing to invalidate the federal law on First Amendment grounds.
In a forceful concurring opinion, he argues the Supreme Court should overrule longstanding precedents denying many constitutional rights to residents of Puerto Rico and other "unincorporated" US territories. Gorsuch is absolutely right. But he would do well to cast the same critical gaze on the very similar precedents that exempt immigration restrictions from normal constitutional scrutiny.
The justice's reference to a national "police power" raised some eyebrows.
"We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators," said the justice, wrongly.
In two opinions issued Monday, the Court gave qualified immunity to several police officers accused of violating the Constitution.
Does the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures include the right to be free from an unreasonable attempted seizure?
The presidential hopeful weighs in on the Supreme Court.
The concerns I expressed about her record on property rights when I testified at her 2009 confirmation hearing were justified. But she has compiled an admirable record on several other issues.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has some concerns.
It's not the first time the two justices have teamed up on a criminal justice case.
A case to watch for both criminal justice reformers and for critics of executive overreach.
The Iowa Republican is dialing up the anti-gay rhetoric.
Sonia Sotomayor is no libertarian. But she has turned out to be a good friend to the Fourth Amendment.
The former 2nd Circuit judge suggests that court was wrong to categorically reject a jury's right to acquit a guilty defendant.
On Sonia Sotomayor, Planned Parenthood, and Common Core
Sotomayor thinks legacy admissions are somehow helping the disadvantaged, when in reality they do the opposite.
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