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?
A lawsuit to keep Donald Trump off the Florida primary ballot fails.
If so, please submit it to the Constitutional Law Institute's fall conference!
The Court will consdier whether to invalidate the CFPB's funding, narrow standing, and overturn Chevron, among other things.
The Court unanimously ruled the plaintiffs in that case lacked standing. But they might end up getting what they wanted more fully than anyone else involved in the legal battle over student loan forgiveness.
The Supreme Court did not overturn the standing holding of MAssachusetts v. EPA, but it may have left it on life support.
The 8-1 decision is a major win for Biden and executive enforcement discretion. I think the Court got the right result, but for the wrong reasons.
Years after the Ninth Circuit ordered the case dismissed, it is brought back to life with a surprising trial court order.
The Supreme Court ruled that home equity theft qualifies as a taking, and that state law is not the sole source for the definition of property rights. The ruling is imprecise on some points, but still sets an important and valuable precedent.
The Supreme Court has accepted certiorari in Carnahan v. Maloney to consider whether members of Congress can sue to force disclosure of information from the General Services Administration.
A new report purporting to show that Missouri's arguments for standing in Nebraska v. Biden are based on a lie fails to deliver.
The decision may even be unanimous.
The appeals court's unpublished order avoids some of the district court's errors, but still has some significant problems, especially with regard to standing.
On Good Friday, two district courts issued decisions on the FDA's approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.
And this lawsuit faces many of the same administrative law hurdles as does AHM v. FDA.
ADF's Erin Hawley responds to my post on the jurisdictional problems in AHM v. FDA and I reply.
There's been lots of heat, but very little light in coverage and commentary about the lawsuit seeking to revoke FDA approval of mifepristone.
The justices seem to be clearly leaning against the Biden Administration on the merits. The procedural issue of standing is a closer call, though ultimately more likely than not to come out the same way.
Legal scholar Michael Dorf claims Supreme Court should rule on this basis. But the doctrine doesn't apply to this case, and is dubious anyway.
A few thoughts on the states' brief and their amici
arguing against standing, even though the program is unlawful.
In this Federalist Society podcast on a major immigration case currently before the Supreme Court, I go over the issues at stake, and make some tentative predictions about the case's likely outcome.
Like the first case, it will be argued in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked.
This post covers significant developments in cases challenging Biden's loan-forgiveness plan other than the one Supreme Court has decided to hear.
In the meantime, the justices left in place a lower court injunction against the plan. That probably doesn't bode well for the Biden Administration's chances of winning.
The Supreme Court's resolution of this procedural issue may be a preview of the justices' views on the ultimate resolution of the student loan forgiveness litigation.
The decision overrules a trial court ruling and likely paves the way for a decision on the merits striking down the program.
The ruling is based on badly flawed reasoning, and may well be overturned on appeal. Even if it isn't, the plaintiff states have an obvious way to get around it.
A federal judge denied PLF's motion to block implementation of the policy. But denial is "without prejudice," and PLF can quickly refile the case.
The lawsuit has a more conventional - and stronger - basis for standing than that filed yesterday by the Pacific Legal Foundation.
It was filed by Pacific Legal Foundation public interest lawyer Frank Garrison, and includes a novel strategy for getting around the problem of standing.
The likely answer is "yes." There are three types of potential litigants who probably qualify.
The Solicitor General and NGO respondents argue that the petitioners lack appellate standing to challenge the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of the Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
The decision is wrong, but consistent with previous precedent. Yet it also threatens to create a road map for circumventing constitutional rights. Fortunately, the latter can be prevented.
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
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
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
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks