The Supreme Court Weighs State Sovereignty and the Status of Puerto Rico
The justices heard oral arguments in Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo.
The justices heard oral arguments in Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo.
arguing against standing, even though the program is unlawful.
Because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud conviction, Bryan Range is no longer allowed to own guns.
If SCOTUS finds in favor of a small-town Idaho couple in Sackett v. EPA, it could end the federal government's jurisdiction over millions of acres of land.
The decision defends the separation of powers and the rule of law against an attempt to prohibit firearm accessories by administrative fiat.
It is becoming a pattern for Supreme Court justices to make significant amounts of money by publishing books.
Justice Thomas' footprints are all over the Court's recently concluded term.
A brief report on Justice Sonia Sotomayor's remarks to the Assocation of American Law Schools conference.
Oregon was one of only two states that allowed for non-unanimous guilty verdicts until the Supreme Court outlawed them in 2020.
The Supreme Court's oral arguments have become significantly longer, but the Court has yet to issue an opinion on the merits so far this term.
The famous internet law is headed for the High Court.
While other pandemic policies have ended, the migration measure has “outlived [its] shelf life,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote yesterday.
As free speech becomes an increasingly important part of the culture war, people won't stop misinterpreting—and outright violating—the First Amendment.
A progressive makes the case the two justices should step down within the next two years so that President Biden may appoint their successors with a Democratic Senate.
The liberal justice seems ready to fight legal conservatives on their own ground.
Federal recognition of same-sex marriage is now officially on the books and no longer dependent on the Supreme Court.
Originalist scholar Larry Solum suggests KBJ could be the Left's Antonin Scalia.
The new ban, which has been blocked by a state judge, so far has fared better in federal court.
The Supreme Court said in 1942 that local activity, not just interstate activity, was subject to congressional regulation.
A website designer asks SCOTUS to let her eschew work that contradicts her opposition to gay marriage.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The Solicitor General's brief defending how the CFPB is funded contradicts what the agency and others have said in the past.
Plus: The editors consider a listener question on the involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill.
A million hypotheticals bloom in arguments over when and where the government may compel speech.
It’s a bold and probably unconstitutional goal that’s bound to alienate millions of Americans.
Civil liberties groups say Adams' plan violates constitutional rights protecting people with mental illness from being confined against their will simply for existing.
This isn't something radical. It basically just affirms a status quo supported by the polls.
Congress should not forget that they can legislate in response to Supreme Court rulings.
Is the federal government giving up on statutory stare decisis?
While "the 26 words that created the internet" have been under fire from both sides, two groups argue that the 1996 law is essential to the future of abortion rights.
The state's ban applies unless the property owner posts a sign allowing firearms or otherwise gives "express consent."
The link between Bostock v. Clayton County and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
The Supreme Court's resolution of this procedural issue may be a preview of the justices' views on the ultimate resolution of the student loan forgiveness litigation.
The Supreme Court grapples with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.
If passed, same-sex couples wouldn’t need to worry about Supreme Court precedents.
The Supreme Court often reverses the U.S. Court of Appeals in habeas cases, but not this time.
Rethinking the constitutional defense of reproductive rights after Dobbs via the Ninth Amendment
Even people who use cannabis for medical purposes risk severe penalties for daring to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have a much greater appetite for reconsidering prior precedent than the other justices do.
In her short, yet searing dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues that the court should have granted the petition of an Ohio man sentenced to death after prosecutors hid a key witness' severe intellectual disability from jurors.
Unfortunately, in five separate cases today, they're outnumbered.
The Supreme Court's 2018 ruling in Timbs v. Indiana revived the Excessive Fines Clause. Now state courts have to come up with tests to determine what's excessive.
The proposed constitutional amendment would shift the state's balance of political power.
The crucial protector of internet speech might have some cracks in its armor.
Supreme Court protesters may get their moment of fame, but they may make it less likely the justices will allow live video broadcast of oral arguments.
Out-of-state and self-managed abortions pose daunting challenges for pro-life legislators.
The two fake news organizations want the Supreme Court to review the case of a man who was arrested for making fun of the police.
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