A surprising grant of certiorari places a high-stakes regulatory case on the Court's docket, with profound implications for EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
The actual number of abortions that S.B. 8 prevented by the end of September may be closer to 500 than 3,000.
John Marion Grant convulsed and vomited as he was put to death.
The Supreme Court's notion of "fair notice," which it says requires blocking many civil rights lawsuits, is based on a demonstrably false assumption.
The idea that massive government spending, hate speech laws, and gun control will improve America—when they failed horribly elsewhere—is a dangerous myth.
Several groups urging the Supreme Court to overturn New York’s virtual ban on bearing arms emphasize the policy’s racist roots and racially disproportionate impact.
Imposing a wealth tax may not even be among the enumerated powers of Congress.
The justices will hear United States v. Texas and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson on November 1.
The Court will hear oral argument in the two cases on November 1.
The Texas law “could just as easily be used by other States to restrict First or Second Amendment rights,” the Firearms Policy Coalition tells SCOTUS.
The gun rights group has filed a brief supporting the petition for certiorari in one of the cases challenging the controversial Texas abortion law.
In two opinions issued Monday, the Court gave qualified immunity to several police officers accused of violating the Constitution.
Adam Liptak reports on a Supreme Court typo that was quickly fixed, but lives on nonetheless.
A Supreme Court decision against New York's gun control scheme would be a victory for both criminal justice reform and the Second Amendment.
The preliminary reports are generally negative on court-packing, but favorable to term limits.
And Justice Sotomayor suggests one reason for the new format is that male justices tended to interrupt female justices.
Demand Justice's Balls and Strikes provides more heat than light.
The experience with the Texas Heartbeat Act offers a preview of what that means.
S.B. 8 allows lawsuits against people who perform prohibited abortions even if they relied on a court's determination that the law is unconstitutional.
The D.C. Circuit rejected the Trump Administration's approach to regulating power plant emissions of greenhouse gases. Some states and industry groups want the Supreme Court to take a look.
In a prior case challenging the law, the 5th Circuit said state judges were not appropriate defendants.
Qualified immunity "does not protect an officer who inflicts deadly force on a person who is only a threat to himself."
The policy imposed an additional form of ritual humiliation on a reviled category of people without any plausible public-safety justification.
The justices robe up for another term.
It could make the Court more vulnerable to political attack and to measures such as court-packing. But the vulnerability might not be great - or last long.
Justices complain about how their work is misrepresented, but then do not make the text or audio of their remarks available to the public.
A quick overview of all those other cases the Supreme Court will consider
"We are not eager—more the reverse—to print a new permission slip for entering the home without a warrant," declared Justice Kagan in Lange v. California.
The legal doctrine continues to render juries irrelevant.
The case was the subject of a Supreme Court ruling in which the power of eminent domain prevailed over state sovereign immunity.
In the first two lawsuits filed under S.B. 8, all of the parties seem to think enforcement of the law should be blocked.
Justices have mostly demurred on the question of whether anti-discrimination laws trump religious freedom.
It's almost impossible to hold federal officers to account.
Second in a series of posts on historically awful Supreme Court decisions that deserve more opprobrium than they get.
Alan Braid says he broke the law, which prohibits the vast majority of abortions, to make sure it would be tested in court.
If anything, Josh was too gentle on Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's latest op-ed.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the authority of the United States...to seek equitable relief to vindicate various federal interests and constitutional guarantees.”
Free speech and occupational licensing collide.
The Justice continues his media book tour without commenting on his potential retirement.
A precedent allowing federal officers to be held civilly liable for constitutional rights violations has come under fire.
An interesting exploration of what happens when high courts are evenly divided.
A federal court admitted the officers violated the man's rights. It doesn't matter.
The same legal ruse can be used against gun rights and other civil liberties, not just against abortion.
The decision is wrong, but consistent with previous precedent. Yet it also threatens to create a road map for circumventing constitutional rights. Fortunately, the latter can be prevented.
In his new book, the 83-year-old justice warns court-packing advocates to “think long and hard before embodying those changes in law.”
Plus: Millennial myth busting, McFlurry madness, and more...
Because the Supreme Court so far has not intervened, post-heartbeat abortions are now illegal in the Lone Star State.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
