Trump Thinks Any Judge Who Rules Against Him Is in League With the 'Radical Left'
The president's wildly inaccurate ideological labels are no more meaningful than his other ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with him.
The president's wildly inaccurate ideological labels are no more meaningful than his other ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with him.
Professor Michael Ramsey revisits the original public meaning of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.
A discussion of the [shadow/interim/emergency/other] docket with Professor Kate Shaw.
American businesses and consumers absorbed nearly 90 percent of the 2025 tariffs' economic burden, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found.
Federal officials enjoy too much immunity from being sued over their misconduct.
"We see this as an important civil liberties issue," says an ACLU lawyer.
It said that if it lost in court, it would refund companies that paid unlawful tariffs. Now it says the process could take years.
Although Trump has other options for taxing imports, the justices reminded him that he needs clear congressional authorization.
And that's especially true if the tariffs are illegal.
The conservative justice’s regrettable opinion in Learning Resources v. Trump.
Plus: The U.S. could be going to war with Iran, the 2026 Winter Olympic Games, and why AI surveillance is worrying civil libertarians
The president is relying on a provision that the government's lawyers said had no "obvious application" to his goal of reducing the trade deficit.
Attorneys for the Trump administration even admitted that Section 122 can't be applied to address trade deficits. Trump is now trying to do that anyway.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County
An initial take on Learning Resources v. Trump.
The president neither understands nor appreciates the vital role of judicial independence in upholding the rule of law.
President Trump will undoubtedly keep trying to impose protectionism, but his options are limited.
It wasn't the Court's opinion that is an "embarrassment."
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor have signed on to at least one opinion that expressly relied upon the major questions doctrine.
What explains the fracture in the Supreme Court's "conservative bloc"?
The new tariff will be implemented under a 1974 law that gives the president authority to impose tariffs for up to 150 days.
The battle against the president's so-called reciprocal tariffs is won, but the war for free trade and a stable business environment continues.
There are many laws that explicitly authorize the president to impose taxes on imports, but they include limits that Trump was keen to avoid.
"There is no exception to the major questions doctrine for emergency statutes," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
Is the conservative Supreme Court justice planning to retire this year?
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon notes that Sen. Mark Kelly's comments about unlawful military orders were "unquestionably protected" by the First Amendment.
The EPA under the Obama and Biden administrations invoked that finding to adopt strict and costly regulations aiming to reduce emissions.
Plus: Is this the Supreme Court’s next big immigration case?
The commission has targeted the news rating company with onerous record demands and a merger condition aimed at cutting off its revenue.
Lower courts keep inventing loopholes to uphold discriminatory booze regulations.
Here's a quick reminder of what the Fourth Amendment has to say about that.
The 4th Circuit held that the doorstep of an apartment did not qualify as protected "curtilage" under the Fourth Amendment.
The prosecutor's threat renewed concerns about the Trump administration's commitment to protecting Second Amendment rights.
Plus: Why is the Supreme Court’s tariff decision taking so long?
A judicial appointment that began the Supreme Court's transformation.
Drug policy reformers and Second Amendment advocates team up in a case before the Supreme Court.
A recent Federalist Society Teleforum with Adam White and Ilan Wurman
NRA Amicus Brief Argues that Ban Fails Bruen Test
The Liberty Justice Center is urging the Supreme Court to uphold a 5th Circuit decision rejecting the claim that cannabis consumers have no Second Amendment rights.
It is nearly impossible to sue a rights-violating federal agent under current caselaw.
Another summary reversal of a Fourth Circuit AEDPA decision.
Trump’s legal arguments “would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve,” the justice said.
The antiquated statute arguably allows the president to deploy the military in response to nearly any form of domestic disorder.
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