3 Areas Where the Courts Pushed Back Against Trump's Attempts To Avoid Judicial Review in 2025
The president asserted broad powers to deport people, impose tariffs, and deploy the National Guard based on his own unilateral determinations.
The president asserted broad powers to deport people, impose tariffs, and deploy the National Guard based on his own unilateral determinations.
Puzzling over a curious omission from the conservative justice
Despite their general ignorance of constitutional law, bears pose a much less grave threat to your civil liberties than humans do.
Presidents, legislators, and police officers were desperate to blame anyone but themselves.
Is unfettered majority rule actually a good idea for the left to embrace?
It is yet another ruling that shields the government from liability for damages caused by law enforcement.
The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure had a rocky 2025.
The department's lawsuit notes that the prohibited firearms are "in common use" for "lawful purposes," meaning they are covered by the Second Amendment.
The justices suggested the president is misinterpreting "the regular forces," a key phrase in the statute on which he is relying.
Oh, so now the Trump administration is worried about the complexity of its tariff polices?
A new study further undermines revisionist claims about birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, noting a dog that did not bark.
The appeals court ruled that administrators violated Stuart Reges' First Amendment rights when they investigated and threatened to punish him for constitutionally protected speech.
A conservative federal judge questions the reach of free speech.
This is Priscilla Villarreal’s second trip to the Supreme Court, which last year revived her First Amendment lawsuit.
From birthright citizenship to tariffs, many of the president’s key policies run counter to the Constitution’s original meaning.
The Supreme Court should take a page from its own history.
The Justice Department's litigation positions are at odds with its avowed intent to protect Second Amendment rights.
Plus: It's the final day of Reason's webathon.
I wrote it (with help from others) on behalf of the Cato Institute and a group of takings and property scholars.
The justices grant certiorari before judgment in one of the two cases challenging the Trump Administration's attempt to narrow birthright citizenship via executive order.
Raich is one of the Court's worst federalism decisions, holding that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce allows it to ban possession of marijuana that never crossed state lines, and was never sold in any market.
Plus: It’s webathon time.
The Department of Justice sides with Monsanto on whether federal law preempts state-law duty-to-warn suits against pesticide manufacturers, setting up an important test of the Court's view of federal preemption.
The Supreme Court’s power to nullify legislative and executive acts is inherent in the Constitution.
The Trump administration is desperately trying to criminalize a video noting that service members have no obligation to follow unlawful orders.
The president’s reaction to a supposedly "seditious" video illustrates his tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime.
Plus: Jimmy Cliff, RIP.
Could today's summary reversal be a sign of things to come?
Now, under Johnson's leadership, the House has changed its rules to make it even harder for lawmakers to signal their opposition to Trump's tariffs.
Plus: Ken Burns’ The American Revolution is worth your time.
Remembering the legacy of a principled legal activist.
Congress justified that National Firearms Act of 1934 as a revenue measure—a rationale undermined by the repeal of taxes on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
The right to keep and bear arms occupies a curious place in American legal history.
For the justices, the question is just how much deference the president deserves.
Steven Duarte is one of several petitioners who are asking the justices to address the constitutionality of that absurdly broad gun ban.
This result is unsurprising, and was predicted by most analysts, including myself.
Brandenburg v. Ohio established the "imminent lawless action" standard. More than 50 years later, partisans keep trying to apply it selectively.
During oral argument at the Supreme Court, Solicitor General D. John Sauer cited a letter by James Madison that completely undermines the administration’s case that its tariffs are legal.
Some observations from yesterday's argument in Learning Resources v. Trump.
Plus: Outrage at Heritage, air traffic might get throttled, and more...
The legal challengers to Trump's tariffs had a good day in court.
Justice Neil Gorsuch got Solicitor General D. John Sauer to admit one "likely" outcome, if the Supreme Court upholds Trump's tariffs.
Trade deficits are not a "national emergency," and the president's import taxes won’t reduce them.
Elsid Aliaj says the seizure violated state law and the Second Amendment.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act doesn't grant the president the power to regulate imports with tariffs. Even if it did, these tariffs would still be unconstitutional.
Learning Resources v. Trump will test both executive power and judicial fidelity.
Plus: Virginia and New Jersey governor’s races, a court ruling extending SNAP funding during the shutdown, and Trump’s tariff fight reaches the Supreme Court
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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks