The Government's Cert Petition to the Supreme Court in Our Tariff Case - and Our Response
We agree the Court should take the case and resolve it as quickly as possible, to minimize the harm caused by the illegal tariffs.
We agree the Court should take the case and resolve it as quickly as possible, to minimize the harm caused by the illegal tariffs.
Minnesota's proposed firearm restrictions raise serious constitutional questions—and offer little in return.
Justice Kavanaugh on what to call the "shadow docket" now that it is no longer in the shadows.
The Justice Department reportedly is considering a regulation aimed at disarming "mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria."
Plus: A momentous date in the life of Frederick Douglass
The Justice Department has proposed a pathway to restore gun rights for millions of Americans.
The appeals court blocked the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under that law "because we find no invasion or predatory incursion."
The federal law relies on a risible reading of the Commerce Clause to restrict a constitutional right.
Donald Trump's claim that the appeals court ruled against him for partisan or ideological reasons is hard to take seriously.
The Administration's arguments have more doctrinal support than some might think
"The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity," the Supreme Court wrote in a ruling this year.
Seven judges agreed that the president's assertion of unlimited authority to tax imports is illegal and unconstitutional.
The appeals court rejected most of the arguments in favor of that policy, saying "the government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger."
Or will the justices say that Trump fired her for illegal reasons?
Plus: An impressive book by a Supreme Court justice.
The appeals court concluded that the government had failed to show that policy is consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Asking SCOTUS to hear a case is not the same thing as convincing SCOTUS to hear a case.
The 2016 brief defended the understanding of the 14th Amendment that the president wants to overturn.
SCOTUS will soon decide.
A New York Times column on the Supreme Court offers a misleading picture and errant analysis.
My Cato Institute colleague Walter Olson explains.
The technology enables routine surveillance that would have troubled the Fourth Amendment’s framers.
The federal government has embraced unconstitutional tactics and now wants SCOTUS to do the same.
The Commerce Clause protects free trade between the states.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is seeking an injunction that would protect noncitizens at The Stanford Daily from arrest and removal because of their published work.
In a rare and significant decision, a federal court ruled Brandon Fulton can sue directly under the Takings Clause—without Congress creating a specific remedy.
The president is claiming "unbounded authority" to impose import taxes based on a law that does not mention them.
The case argues that, since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated taxes on the transfer of certain weapons, the constitutional basis for registering those weapons no longer exists.
Joe and Russell Marino will finally get their day in court. The ruling represents a turning of the tide when it comes to the fairness of such proceedings, where agencies have long played both prosecutor and jury.
The appeals court held that the government may require COVID-19 shots based purely on the benefits to recipients.
In Chandler v. Brown, the Sixth Circuit may have been too quick (again) to grant a habeas petition.
A defense to Steve Vladeck's critique and a brief comment on Adrian Vermeule's related op-ed in the New York Times.
Rushing out opinions can lock in erroneous conclusions and create problematic precedent.
The anticommandeering doctrine stands in the way of Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Years after home equity theft was ruled unconstitutional, Michigan keeps looking for ways around the ruling.
A federal court concluded the official was entitled to qualified immunity in a case that united two unlikely allies.
Local officials initially were unfazed by complaints that the constant surveillance raised serious privacy concerns.
The Supreme Court's critics are too quick to assume the Court's orders are motivated by political considerations as opposed to principle.
Environmental Protection Agency
Idaho landowners are facing ruinous fines because the Army Corps of Engineers refuses to follow the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in Sackett v. EPA.
The judgment is not surprising, since the president's reading of the 14th Amendment contradicts its text and history, plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent.
Plus: Ozzy Osbourne, RIP.
Further indication that independent agencies will not be "independent" much longer.
Trump v. CASA was important, but it is not clear district courts have gotten the message.
Plus: Did Mario Vargas Llosa write the world’s greatest political novel?
The contrast between the two cases illustrates the haphazard impact of an arbitrary, constitutionally dubious gun law.
The state just cracked down on a form of state-sanctioned robbery, where governments seized and sold homes over minor tax delinquencies—and then pocketed the profits.
In response to a Second Amendment lawsuit, the government says the restriction "serves legitimate objectives" and "only modestly burdens" the right to arms.
Judge James C. Ho recently described a troubling phenomenon on the 5th Circuit and the government abuse it enables.