Standing in West Virginia v. EPA Revisited
Why the arguments the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the latest climate change case likely lack merit.
Why the arguments the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the latest climate change case likely lack merit.
This approach would avoid many of the flaws of traditional racial preferences. But it has some downsides of its own.
The Institute for Justice offers a generally pessimistic appraisal of the situation under state law, but some optimism about prospects in the Supreme Court.
Civil libertarians have reason to be wary of Judge J. Michelle Childs.
Contrary to some of the more breathless reactions, it doesn't suggest a conspiracy to help Republicans win elections by disenfranchising black voters.
The Duke law professor posts an important and insightful article on this subject.
Supreme Court confirmation votes have become increasingly partisan. Will this create a problem in a 50-50 Senate?
A former clerk to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is accused of burnishing her Wiki bio, while sabotaging those of other contenders to replace Justice Breyer.
The Supreme Court will soon decide a case that tests the limits of expression on government property and religious toleration.
A unanimous panel rejects a Trump Administration change to rules on collective bargaining for government workers.
There are more productive things to argue about than identify politics.
The Solicitor General and NGO respondents argue that the petitioners lack appellate standing to challenge the D.C. Circuit's interpretation of the Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Michael and Chantell Sackett say they shouldn't have to spend years—and hundreds of thousands of dollars—just getting permission to build on their suburban lot.
More than 100 law professors agree that "academic freedom protects Shapiro's views."
Plus, Supreme Court nominations and affirmative action in schools
It is almost impossible to hold a rogue federal officer accountable. The Supreme Court may make it even harder.
“I regret my poor choice of words, which undermine my message that no one should be discriminated against for his or her gender or skin color,” Shapiro tells Reason.
The article challenges longstanding conventional wisdom. It is coauthored with political scientist Michael Dichio (University of Utah).
Breyer’s deference to law enforcement often led him to sell the Fourth Amendment short.
President Biden has promised to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. He should also consider a nominee with legal experience current justices lack.
That process takes a long time, and the result would face the same legal objection cited by the Supreme Court.
His judicial philosophy emphasized promotion of democracy, a theme in tension with his emphasis on the need for deference to expertise.
SCOTUS rejected attempt to bypass Congress with an emergency regulation.
Assuming Biden can replace him, the Court's ideological composition probably won't change much.
After more than a decade of subversion, the Supreme Court has a chance to rectify this situation.
Insofar as the Court was concerned about pretext, it may be more difficult for the EPA to reduce greenhouse gases using regulatory authority to control emissions.
The Supreme Court could decide the fate of affirmative action at public and private universities.
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's support for qualified immunity is in opposition to the principles he says he stands for.
Democracy means accepting results you're not happy about.
Starbucks has decided the vaccine mandate isn't good for their business
John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Sonia Sotomayor have all denied Nina Totenberg's story about a SCOTUS dispute over masking.
On government curation and government speech.
The question for the Supreme Court was not whether the policy was wise but whether it was legal.
Nina Totenberg reports on potential strains among the justices and Justice Gorsuch's decision not to wear a mask at argument.
The applicability of Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing -- no, wait! I promise it's important . . . .
Without judicial review, liberals confronting a Republican-controlled legislature will have no opportunity to seek constitutional redress in federal court.
The crux of the argument is the distinction "between occupational risk and risk more generally."
Assorted observations on yesterday's opinions, what they mean, and what comes next.
Separately, the court upheld Biden's mandate that health care workers must be vaccinated to work at medical facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding.
By divided votes, the justices entered stayed t the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard and stayed the lower court injunctions against the mandate that Medicare and Medicaid service providers require their employees to get vaccinated.
Defenders of the CDC eviction moratorium predicted a "tsunami" of evictions would happen if the policy were rescinded. That hasn't happened.
Does it matter that the year Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act was as proximate to the Spanish Flu as to today?
The justice's reference to a national "police power" raised some eyebrows.
The caliber of questioning by the justices was not up to the usual standards, but the justices seemed to understand the two rules at issue present different questions.
The article explains why SB 8 potentially poses a threat to constitutional rights far beyond the abortion context, and how future court decisions could potentially mitigate it.
In my view, the Court should uphold the CMS health care worker vaccination requirement, but rule against the overreaching OSHA rule imposed on employers with 100 or more workers.
Most of the justices appear to be skeptical of the argument that the agency has the power it is asserting.
"We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators," said the justice, wrongly.