Today's Supreme Court ruling barring nationwide injunctions could empower the federal government to engage in large-scale violations of the Constitution. Exactly how bad the consequences will be depends on the extent to which other remedies can be used to forestall them.
This one claims that the Trump Administration's deregulatory efforts violate the Fifth Amendment.
They challenge both the "Liberation Day" IEEPA tariffs, and earlier ones imposed on Canada, Mexico and China.
A useful reminder from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to read circuit rules before filing.
It's a good step. But the schools should also file their own lawsuit challenging this awful policy.
State Attorneys General appear more interested in lining up with their political tribe than they are in defending state interests.
Interestingly enough, the government focused its argument on standing, and did not defend the Executive Order on the merits.
Justice Thomas dissents from the Court's refusal to resolve a clear circuit split.
The act doesn't target violent criminals and sex offenders, and is likely to harm innocent people and divert resources from genuine anti-crime efforts. It also makes it easier for state governments to try to impede legal immigration.
The Juliana plaintiffs are again seeking Supreme Court review of their case.
A state Supreme Court gives environmental activists an important symbolic victory that will not do much of anything to mitigate the threat of climate change.
December certiorari grants on standing and religion are early holiday gifts for Court watchers.
No, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's initial standing rulings were not faithful applications of Supreme Court precedent.
The lawsuit deserves to lose. But it may well lead to a prolonged legal battle.
The Supreme Court's conservatives are not cutting conservative litigants any slack (and that's a good thing).
The standing requirements laid down by the majority might make it extremely difficult or impossible for victims of indirect goverment censorship to get their cases to court.
Even if one thinks the federal government crossed the line in pushing more aggressive social-media-platform content moderation policies, plaintiffs must still satisfy the traditional requirements of Article III standing.
It's a good policy, authorized by the law. But it will likely face lawsuits, nonetheless, potentially leading to a prolonged legal battle.
In his AHM v. FDA concurrence, Justice Thomas suggests the Court needs to rethink associational standing and questions whether it comports with Article III.
Not a single justice was impressed by the unimpressive standing theories offered in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA.
The decision allows the lawsuit to proceed, albeit with fewer plaintiffs.
The district court recognizes that the plaintiffs lack standing, but grants them leave to amend.
A unanimous panel orders dismissal of Juliana v. United States, bringing this zombie litigation to a close.
If doctors cannot sue the FDA for failing to restrict pharmaceuticals or other products, can anyone else? And if not, is this a problem?
This would virtually ensure the case can't be dismissed for lack of standing, thanks to Missouri's precedent-setting Supreme Court victory in Biden v. Nebraska. The Show Me State can once again really show 'em!
Live commentary on the Supreme Court oral argument in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
The threshold issue in today's oral argument is Article III standing, and that issue should be determinative.
Another federal appellate judge expresses discontent with current standing doctrine.
The Second Circuit divides over whether an association must identify an injured member by name for the purposes of Article III. (Updated)
The ruling allows the CNVH private sponsorship program - covering migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Haiti to continue. But it is likely to be appealed.
The Court also rejects a late-filed amicus briefs from the American Bar Association, but accepts one from former FDA Commissioners.
The court concludes that, because the plaintiff hadn't applied to be hired, he didn't have standing to challenge the policy.
The Court granted two petitions for certiorari seeking review of a controversial lower court decision limiting federal approval of mifepristone.
The Supreme Court's first decision of the term does not decide very much.
The Court saw no reason to consider the Eighth Circuit's conclusion that the states lacked standing.
Time to brush off your federal courts outlines.
Recent Supreme Court cases suggest that both the left and the right are already repositioning themselves.
Procedure, soundbites, popular views, and more combined to create legally unfounded memes.
Recent reporting doesn't materially undermine, and could even strengthen, the case for standing.
The Court had ample reason to find a "credible threat" of enforcement, consistent with existing case law.
Is the legal left beginning to adopt a hawkish attitude toward standing?
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
