A Textualist Defense of the Major Questions Doctrine
Critics claim the doctrine is obviously at odds with textualism. But that isn't the case.
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.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear 94-year-old Geraldine Tyler's case challenging home equity theft.
By banning firearms from a wide range of "sensitive places," the state effectively nullified the right to bear arms.
There's a good reason why algorithms are still protected by Section 230.
The law is hard to defend on logical, practical, or constitutional grounds.
The justices heard oral arguments in Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo.
arguing against standing, even though the program is unlawful.
Because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud conviction, Bryan Range is no longer allowed to own guns.
If SCOTUS finds in favor of a small-town Idaho couple in Sackett v. EPA, it could end the federal government's jurisdiction over millions of acres of land.
The decision defends the separation of powers and the rule of law against an attempt to prohibit firearm accessories by administrative fiat.
It is becoming a pattern for Supreme Court justices to make significant amounts of money by publishing books.
Justice Thomas' footprints are all over the Court's recently concluded term.
A brief report on Justice Sonia Sotomayor's remarks to the Assocation of American Law Schools conference.
Oregon was one of only two states that allowed for non-unanimous guilty verdicts until the Supreme Court outlawed them in 2020.
The Supreme Court's oral arguments have become significantly longer, but the Court has yet to issue an opinion on the merits so far this term.
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