Affirmative Action Is Racist and Therefore Wrong
If activists want to help young people, they should start before college.
If activists want to help young people, they should start before college.
Civil forfeiture is a highly unaccountable practice. The justices have the opportunity to make it a bit less so.
Biden plans to slash minimum monthly payments to just 5 percent of borrowers' income.
Plus: A listener questions last week’s discussion of the Supreme Court's decision involving same-sex wedding websites and free expression.
Contra Joe Biden, they argue that these recent rulings show respect for individual rights and concern for racial and sexual minorities.
Teachers are citing West Virginia v. Barnette to protect their right not to be compelled to say something they disagree with.
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a live discussion of the Court's recent rulings on affirmative action and same-sex wedding services.
Plus: A listener question on the potential efficacy of congressional term limits.
If you can't force a web designer to serve a gay wedding, can you force a web platform to serve a politician?
Plus: Fewer cops, less crime; free beer; and more....
The Court will consdier whether to invalidate the CFPB's funding, narrow standing, and overturn Chevron, among other things.
Some end-of-term comments and an assessment of my end-of-term predictions.
The President strongly criticized the Supreme Court's recent decisions, but refuses to endorse radical reform.
The decision reverses a terrible previous decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Plus: Perspectives on the affirmative action ruling, how U.S. policy is thwarting Cuban capitalists, and more...
and other matters from the latest episode of Divided Argument
There is no reason for public universities to grant preferential treatment to the scions of their alumni.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violates the 14th Amendment.
The Court's core ruling is unsurprising, but its future effects are uncertain.
Leading originalist constitutional law scholar comments on the Supreme Court's recent rejection of independent state legislature theory.
Plus: Maine prostitution measure becomes law, "significant misconduct" in jail where Epstein hung himself, Mike Pence defends free markets, and more...
Chief Justice John Roberts decisively rejected the independent state legislature theory.
Plus: Why people believe doomer narratives, schools seek to define social media platforms as public nuisances, and more...
Justice Gorsuch has never voted against Native American interests in a Supreme Court case. But that probably isn't because he's biased in favor of Indians. He simply believes that much existing precedent in this field is biased the other way.
The question presented is whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.
The Supreme Court did not overturn the standing holding of MAssachusetts v. EPA, but it may have left it on life support.
Some worth-what-you-paid-for-them predictions for the final(?) week of SCOTUS opinions.
Today’s decision “is narrow and simply maintains the longstanding jurisprudential status quo,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the majority.
While intended to keep Native families together, the ICWA subjects American Indian children to a lower level of protection than is enjoyed by non-Native kids.
Plus: Court rules against judge who threw child stars in jail during parents' custody dispute, inside the FTC's attempt to stop Microsoft from acquiring Call of Duty, and more...
The Supreme Court was wrong to deny relief to a man imprisoned for activity that Court's own rulings indicate was not illegal - one who never had an opportunity to challenge his incarceration on that basis.
Joanna Schwartz on how law enforcement "became untouchable"
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson may speak the most at oral argument, but Justice Thomas is writing more pages.
It's not a broad attack on free expression, but Thursday's ruling is certainly a victory for brands that can't take a joke.
It did so in today's Voting Rights Act ruling in Allen v. Milligan. This holding has implications for other cases where litigants attempt to overturn statutory precedents, especially longstanding ones.
The decision highlights the injustice of a federal law that bans gun possession by broad categories of "prohibited persons."
As pot prohibition collapses across the country, that policy is increasingly untenable.
Criticizing the law by calling for people to break it is an American tradition.
The lawsuit looks iffy in light of the Supreme Court's "open fields" doctrine.
The Supreme Court is agnostic on questions of science, but clear and resolute on questions of law.
Could the Court treat Justice Powell's Bakke opinion the way it treated Justice Kennedy's Rapanos opinion?
a sub silentio invocation of the general law and positive law approaches
The Tyler home equity theft case is just the tip of a much larger iceberg of property rights issues where stronger judicial protection can protect the interests of the poor and minorities, as well as promote the federalist values of localism and diversity.
Thanks to Sackett v. EPA, the feds can no longer treat a backyard puddle like it's a lake.
The Clean Water Act decision was a unanimous win for the Sacketts, and a 5-4 victory for Justice Scalia's 2006 Rapanos v. United States plurality.
The Supreme Court ruled that home equity theft qualifies as a taking, and that state law is not the sole source for the definition of property rights. The ruling is imprecise on some points, but still sets an important and valuable precedent.
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