Of Course Legacy Admissions Should Follow Affirmative Action to the Grave
There is no reason for public universities to grant preferential treatment to the scions of their alumni.
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.
"The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, but no more," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch highlights a vital lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The FBI is investigating the shooting, but Supreme Court precedent from last year's Egbert v. Boule will make it nearly impossible for Raymond Mattia's family to find justice through civil courts.
A welcome reminder that reviewing courts must judge the propriety of agency actions solely by the grounds invoked by the agency.
The case could have long-term implications for how broadly fair use can be applied.
"Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country," Gorsuch wrote. That might be an exaggeration, but it isn't far off.
Plus: A new lawsuit in Montana over the state's TikTok ban, the economic realities of online content creation, the rights of private companies, and more...
The narrow rulings concluded the platforms aren’t responsible for bad people using their communication services.
On Monday, the Supreme Court sided with an Alabama death-row inmate who, after surviving a botched lethal injection attempt last year, says he wants to die by gas chamber instead.
The state defied a Supreme Court ruling by banning guns from myriad "sensitive places."
Plus: APA says social media not inherently harmful for kids, senators propose Artificial Intelligence Regulatory Agency, and more...
He either doesn't understand or won't admit why this violates the First Amendment.
U.S. District Judge Robert Payne concluded that 18-to-20-year-olds have the same Second Amendment rights as older adults.
The Supreme Court has accepted certiorari in Carnahan v. Maloney to consider whether members of Congress can sue to force disclosure of information from the General Services Administration.
Justice Kavanaugh continues to support granting certiorari in cases his colleagues do not wish to hear.
The Supreme Court issues five merits opinions, but there are still forty more waiting.
Biden v. Nebraska has far-reaching implications for presidential power.
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