The Cato Institute and the New Civil Liberties Alliance urge the Federal Circuit to extend the logic of a decision against the president's far-reaching import taxes.
Class actions and Administrative Procedure Act claims can achieve much the same result as the nationwide orders that the Supreme Court rejected.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is considering whether the president properly invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members.
Although the appeals court said the president probably complied with the law he invoked to justify his California deployment, it emphasized that such decisions are subject to judicial review.
The government's lawyer told a 9th Circuit panel the president's deployments are "unreviewable," so he need not even pretend to comply with the statute on which he is relying.
John Moore and Tanner Mansell were convicted of theft after they freed sharks they erroneously thought had been caught illegally.
In the name of "restoring freedom of speech," FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson wants to override the editorial judgments of social media platforms.
A declassified assessment contradicts the president's assertion that Tren de Aragua is "closely aligned with" the Venezuelan government and acts at its "direction."
The court concludes that the federal 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act preempts state battery claims, but not state constitutional law claims.
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 president-elect frivolously claims that J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register owe him damages because of an erroneous preelection poll.
The unanimous panel has little difficulty concluding the FCC sought to exercise authority it did not have.
Federal prosecutors argued that John Moore and Tanner Mansell stole property when they hauled in a fishing line they mistakenly believed had been set by poachers.
The decision also negates two counts of the federal indictment accusing Donald Trump of illegally interfering in the 2020 presidential election.
It won't end the administrative state or even significantly reduce the amount of federal regulation. But it's still a valuable step towards protecting the rule of law and curbing executive power.
The close 4-3 decision might well become a staple of textbooks.
Fifth in a series of guest-blogging posts.
Priscilla Villarreal is appealing a 5th Circuit decision that dismissed her First Amendment lawsuit against Laredo police and prosecutors.
The Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute also could affect two charges against Donald Trump.
The case hinged on statutory interpretation, not the merits of the state's 1864 ban.
A district court concludes that the Department of Transportation lacks the authority to force states to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with highway use.
Further debate on textualism, "common good constitutionalism," and the classical legal method.
The idea that greater assertions of executive authority require greater support than ordinary acts is not a new one.
with relevance to both a 1980 precedent and a recent article by Alex Reinert
A majority of judges concluded the plain language of the statute does not apply to bump stocks, but they also would have denied Chevron deference had they found the statute ambiguous.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch are disagreeing more than you might think, but Justice Barrett appears to have the upper hand.
A state court rules that bumble bees may qualify as "fish" under the California Endangered Species Act
A proposal from Justice Kagan.
In Wooden v. United States, the justices were unanimous in the judgment, but expressed disagreement over the role of statutory history and the rule of lenity.
A partially divided panel concludes the Environmental Protection Agency may not regulate trailers as “motor vehicles.”
on the proper role of legal corpus linguistics, by C'Zar Bernstein
The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Niz-Chavez v. Garland is not what you might have expected, but it may be a sign of things to come.
The Case Western Reserve Law Review has published Judge Barrett's 2019 Sumner Canary Memorial Lecture
Both sides in the landmark employment discrimination decision agree that laws should generally be interpreted based on the "ordinary meaning" of their words. But they differ on what that entails.
The decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is well-justified from the standpoint of textualism (a theory associated with conservatives), but less clearly so from the standpoint of purposivism (often associated with liberals).
How the FDA lost, and gained, jurisdiction over cigarettes -- to a Newfoundland fishing-boat tune
The Supreme Court's dueling opinions in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper raise interesting questions about textualist statutory interpretation.
If a statute imposes strict liability for dog bites, does that extend to a herding dog nipping at a cow that then trampled the plaintiff?
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
