Unanimous Supreme Court Affirms Right to Challenge Federal Agencies in Federal Court
Those claiming they are subject to unconstitutional agency proceedings need not suffer through agency proceedings before bringing their claims to federal court.
Those claiming they are subject to unconstitutional agency proceedings need not suffer through agency proceedings before bringing their claims to federal court.
My presentation covers an important takings case currently before the Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone was unimpressed by the Biden administration's argument that marijuana users are too "dangerous" to own guns.
A Colorado man was convicted under an anti-stalking law for sending hostile messages online.
The Biden administration is defending a federal law that disarms Americans based on "boilerplate language" in orders that judges routinely grant.
The 5th Circuit noted that such orders can be issued without any credible evidence of a threat to others.
An unusual coalition of liberal and conservative justices rules that property owners have right to use Quiet Title Act to contest federal intrusion on their land, even in some cases where the statute of limitations may have passed.
The Biden administration is the third administration in a row to fail to issue Clean Water Act regulations that pass judicial scrutiny.
The Supreme Court justice seemed willing to invalidate the federal law on First Amendment grounds.
The CFPB funding scheme is constitutional, the 2nd Circuit says.
James King is once again asking the high court to rule that two officers should not receive immunity for choking him unconscious and temporarily disfiguring his face.
Defending a categorical ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers, the Biden administration cites inapt "historical analogues."
Is testimony over Zoom consistent with a criminal defendant's Constitutional rights?
The Court's newest justice questions whether her colleagues are too quick to vacate lower court decisions.
Did the Court misunderstand its "adequate and independent state ground" doctrine?
The third parties think the new ballot restrictions meet no legitimate state interest besides guaranteeing Democrat and Republican hold on government.
The Constitution was intended to preserve state sovereignty, not create an all-powerful central government.
Understanding what’s at stake in United States v. Hansen
It argues for increasing the number of cases in the Supreme Court's "Hall of Shame" and proposes three worthy additions.
Why I oppose both right-wing efforts to neuter judicial review in Israel and left-wing attempts to do the same in the US.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, Donald Trump thinks harsh criticism of the president should be actionable.
Lawmakers should proactively retake the power of the purse from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules.
Did the state court have jurisdiction to grant rehearing?
According to the Justice Department's reading of the law, the crime need not involve impersonation or even fraud.
Politicians say they want to subsidize various industries, but they sabotage themselves by weighing the policies down with rules that have nothing to do with the plans.
Thoughts on recent oral argument exchanges on whether the Administrative Procedure Act contemplates (let alone requires) universal vacatur.
Critics claim the doctrine is obviously at odds with textualism. But that isn't the case.
Twenty years ago, the justices deemed registration nonpunitive, accepting unsubstantiated assumptions about its benefits and blithely dismissing its costs.
The justices seem to be clearly leaning against the Biden Administration on the merits. The procedural issue of standing is a closer call, though ultimately more likely than not to come out the same way.
The Bank Secrecy Act divides the justices in an unusual way, and Justice Barrett authors her fourth opinion in an argued case.
To the junior-most justice goes a case arising out of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction concerning the Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler's Checks Act.
The Supreme Court considers the scope of presidential power in Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.
A New York Times story about the state's location-specific gun bans glosses over the vast territory they cover.
Plus: Texas prosecutors can't criminally charge people who help others access out-of-state abortions, food trucks fight rules banning them in 96 percent of North Carolina city, and more...
Officials shield government abuses from litigation by claiming “national security.” The Supreme Court declined to weigh in.
Attempts to reclassify ISPs as common carriers are unsupported by law.
The Court’s decisions in Gonzalez and subsequent cases could lead to impossible, incompatible consequences.
It's a threat to our fundamental rights, but courts refuse to change their approach.
Justice Barrett has produced two majority opinions before most of her colleagues have produced one.
For the second time, Justice Jackson dissents from the Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case.
The Supreme Court’s newest member weighs in on the meaning of Section 230 in Gonzalez v. Google.
Section 230 helped the internet flourish. Now its scope is under scrutiny.
As legislators refuse to act, benefits will be cut without any possibility of sheltering those seniors who are poor.
Gonzalez v. Google presents the Supreme Court’s first opportunity to weigh in on Section 230.
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