SCOTUS Narrows the Reach of the Voting Rights Act
Plus: The Supreme Court says “demands for a charity’s private member or donor information” raises First Amendment problems.
Plus: The Supreme Court says “demands for a charity’s private member or donor information” raises First Amendment problems.
If Trump can end temporary protected status for Haitian and Syrian nationals, don't expect it to stop there.
The Trump Administration is refusing to defend a D.C. Circuit decision upholding a flawed energy conservation ruie.
The Court dispatches with an easy case the lower courts should have gotten right.
"Geofence" searches illustrate the perilous combination of modern technology and deference to law enforcement.
The Court’s glyphosate case could reshape legal liability—and undermine evidence-based regulation.
The government wants access to millions of cell phone location histories. The Supreme Court will decide what the Fourth Amendment allows.
A retired liberal justice does not credit the shadow docket hysteria, nor does former Judge Michael McConnell
Remarks by the current Supreme Court's longest-serving justice that stoked controversy.
To justify punishing a legislator for his speech, a FIRE brief notes, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth relies on a Supreme Court precedent that is clearly inapposite.
William Baude and Richard Re respond to a common narrative
The burden of Trump's illegal tariffs was spread across the American economy. The refunds likely won't cover all those costs.
Those who don't like how the Supreme Court handles requests for interim relief might like solutions to the problem even less.
Plus: Does Trump expect to lose the birthright citizenship case?
The governor is threatening to defund the police because of an ordinance noting that an ICE administrative warrant "does not justify a stop, arrest, or continued detention" by city officers.
Contrary to what some believe, the Clean Power Plan was not the first executive branch action stopped on the "Shadow Docket."
More of what's been absent from discussions of the recently released Supreme Court memoranda, with commentary by Davis and Re.
Plus: a credible new report on the Alito retirement rumors.
The professional-ethics implications of making court confidences public.
A critique of the New York Times "unfortunately tendentious reporting about the memoranda."
The leak of internal Supreme Court memos could affect how the Court operates.
A New York Times scoop reveals that Chief Justice Roberts was concerned that the EPA would (again) get away with imposing unlawful burdens on utilities.
The Court's 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan is freshly relevant in light of recent efforts to restrict speech through government intimidation.
Remembering the infuriating case of United States v. “The Spirit of ’76.”
Plus: The Alito retirement rumors keep swirling.
Adler v. Shugerman on the Supreme Court's handling of separation of powers concerns on the "shadow docket."
The case will determine whether an unnamed plaintiff can take the hospital and its doctors to federal court.
The Court of International Trade is weighing the legality of the import taxes that the president wants to impose under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
It is often useful to consult the original source.
It was surprising that the Solicitor General did not appear to have thought much about the extent of Congress' legislative power under Section 5.
How the digital privacy rights of millions are at stake in Chatrie v. United States.
Two petitions ask the Supreme Court to uphold the remedy required by the Fifth Amendment.
The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause promises "just compensation" when private property is taken for public use. But some courts have ruled that it does not always apply when police are involved.
The Administration's constitutional arguments are unconvincing, but rejecting them is not necessary to decide United States v. Barbara
Understanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar.
"No statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have," U.S. District Judge Richard Leon concluded when he enjoined the project.
Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden asked the Supreme Court to abolish nationwide injunctions, which allow federal judges to stop a federal policy from going into effect.
There are far too few checks left on executive power.
Understanding the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara.
There was little rhyme or reason to the president's "emergency" tariffs, which fluctuated wildly depending on his mood.
Understanding the stakes in Trump v. Barbara.
The case could give the Court a chance to clarify what a "closely regulated" business is and what constitutional protections it enjoys.
Plus: What George Orwell thought about Friedrich Hayek.
Despite its rejection of the Biden administration's interference, the Trump administration is still asserting authority over online speech.
The president and his new DHS secretary are enraged by jurists and legislators who refuse to toe the party line.
The justice dissented from the Supreme Court's denial of a petition from a Texas journalist who was charged with felonies for practicing journalism.
What’s at stake in Watson v. Republican National Committee.
But for a fraudulent and misleading warrant affidavit, Taylor would not have been killed during a fruitless late-night drug raid.
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