Qualified Immunity Is Not Limited to Police Brutality. It Protects a Wide Variety of Abusive Officials.
An analysis of appeals involving the doctrine finds that less than a quarter "fit the popular conception of police accused of excessive force."
An analysis of appeals involving the doctrine finds that less than a quarter "fit the popular conception of police accused of excessive force."
The Supreme Court supposedly put an end to “home equity theft” last year. But some state and local governments have found a loophole.
Most of the justices are clearly inclined to reject a Colorado Supreme Court decision asserting that power under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
A federal judge allowed a lawsuit against the officers to proceed, finding evidence of several constitutional violations.
Things you may have missed between the Trump disqualification case, Biden special counsel report, and NBA trade deadline.
The justices might well overrule the Colorado Supreme Court on the grounds that only Congress has power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Such a ruling would be a serious mistake.
Rejecting a challenge to the state's strict gun laws, the court is openly contemptuous of Second Amendment precedents.
The Biden administration's interference with bookselling harks back to a 1963 Supreme Court case involving literature that Rhode Island deemed dangerous.
The decision likens the federal law to Reconstruction era restrictions on firearms near polling places.
The appeals court says it "cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter."
Some thoughts on the most important issue in Relentless and Loper Bright.
The verdict vindicates the constitutional rights that Louisiana sheriff's deputies flagrantly violated when they hauled Waylon Bailey off to jail.
The brief explains why a criminal conviction is not necessary for Trump to be disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Priscilla Villarreal, also known as "Lagordiloca," has sparked a debate about free speech and who, exactly, is a journalist.
Some candid remarks at the University of California at Berkeley
Perhaps Governor Abbott will flout a directive from the Supreme Court in a future case, but reports of Texas "defying" the Supreme Court are bunk, and many making such claims should know better.
The proposal seems to conflict with a Supreme Court ruling against laws that criminalize mere possession of obscene material.
Plus: The most boring write-in campaign, some heat in the Argentine streets, Brooklyn's penchant for vehicular manslaughter, and more...
After multiple investigations shed doubt on his conviction, the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Oklahoma death-row inmate Richard Glossip will get a new trial.
He is asking the justices to reject the Colorado Supreme Court's conclusion that he is disqualified from running for president.
In an amicus brief filed in Murthy v. Missouri, they ignore basic tenets of First Amendment law in order to quash online speech they don't like.
The justices seem inclined to revise or ditch a 1984 precedent that requires deference to executive agencies' statutory interpretations.
Excessive judicial deference gives administrative agencies a license to rewrite the law in their favor.
Both conservative and liberal justices seem to oppose letting states get away with violating the Takings Clause merely because Congress hasn't enacted a specific law enforcing it against them.
Plus: the Supreme Court weighs housing fees and homelessness, YIMBYs bet on smaller, more focused reforms, and a new paper finds legalizing more housing does in fact bring costs down.
That's the big takeaway from yesterday's oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. But it's not clear whether the Court will resolve any additional issues, and if so how.
California made carry permits easier to obtain but nearly impossible to use.
The state's law, which a federal judge enjoined last month, prohibits firearms in most public places.
Only one justice indicated any interest in premature consideration of state-law climate change lawsuits.
The justices will hear the case on an expedited schedule, and could potentially consider all the issues it raises.
The panel covered many cases and featured views many would not expect at a Fed Soc event.
His Supreme Court petition raises serious questions about how to interpret and apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
The Supreme Court judges Eighth Amendment cases with "evolving standards of decency." Some conservative jurists don't like it.
After a federal judge deemed the state's location-specific gun bans unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit stayed his injunction.
Letting state officials determine whether a candidate has "engaged in insurrection" opens a huge can of worms.
The former Attorney General disagrees with me on whether state and local government climate change lawsuits belong in federal court.
His lawyers say no jury can ever consider charges based on his "official acts" as president, which include his efforts to reverse Joe Biden's election.
You're not going to save democracy by kicking people out of elections.
Ralph Petty's "conflicted dual-hat arrangement" as an advocate and an adjudicator was "utterly bonkers," Judge Don Willett notes.
The ACLU will represent the gun rights group in a case with widespread relevance for free speech.
The Court announced today that it would take up a case involving access to the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone.
The court upheld several other location-specific gun bans, along with the state's "good moral character" requirement for a carry permit.
The Court granted two petitions for certiorari seeking review of a controversial lower court decision limiting federal approval of mifepristone.
The Court agreed to the special counsel's request for expedited briefing on whether to grant certiorari.
Plus: Austin and Salt Lake City pass very different "middle housing" reforms, Democrats in Congress want to ban hedge fund–owned rental housing, and a look at GOP presidential candidate's housing policy positions.
The justices are considering whether to grant certiorari in Minnesota's lawsuit against energy companies.
Justice Jackson notes her objection to the Court's standard practice of vacating lower court decisions rendered moot by the prevailing party below.
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