The DOJ Says Forbidding Pot Users To Own Guns Is Like Telling People Not To Carry Guns When They're Drunk
Defending a categorical ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers, the Biden administration cites inapt "historical analogues."
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.
Guidance for judicial examination of legal history.
The Biden Administration suggests that the Title 42 case before the Supreme Court will be moot before it is decided.
A few thoughts on the states' brief and their amici
Why isn’t affirmative action in college admissions prohibited under the Civil Rights Act?
The government argued that marijuana users have no Second Amendment rights because they are dangerous, unvirtuous, and untrustworthy.
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh addressed questions on a range of questions at a recent Notre Dame symposium.
In 1950, there were more than 16 workers for every beneficiary. In 2035, that ratio will be only 2.3 workers per retiree.
A $2.1 million penalty for failing to file a form on time reveals the agency’s true nature.
The Supreme Court considers the scope of federally required religious accommodations at work.
Should an elderly grandmother be forced to hand over millions of dollars to the government for failing to file a particular form?
The Supreme Court has been slow to issue opinions this term, but the first opinion has finally been released.
The Supreme Court takes up “true threats” and the First Amendment in Counterman v. Colorado.
The city has not granted a single permit since the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms last June.
A Supreme Court case illustrates the potential costs of making it easier to sue social media platforms over user-generated content.