"Taking Carbon to Court"—Massachusetts v. EPA and The Rule of Five
A review of Richard Lazarus' chronicle of the Massachusetts v. EPA litigation in The New Atlantis.
A review of Richard Lazarus' chronicle of the Massachusetts v. EPA litigation in The New Atlantis.
Given the conspicuous lack of credible evidence, the president's charges can be accepted only as a matter of faith.
Conservative judges have stymied Trump in his election challenges - and many other cases where his positions went against their legal principles. But a populist/nationalist GOP could gradually change the nature of conservative jurisprudence.
Although the president says the justices "chickened out," other courts have considered and rejected the merits of his legal arguments.
A 7-1 Supreme Court rejected Texas's claims against New Mexico
By his own account, the Texas senator is committed to defending a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully.
Trump’s judicial humiliation is now complete.
With Friday's ruling from the Supreme Court, the result of this year's presidential election is clear. Joe Biden won. It is over.
The Court made the right decision and demonstrated its independence. But it may not still claims that the election was somehow stolen from Trump.
The Supreme Court, 7-2, voted to deny Texas AG Paxton's motion for leave to file its election complaint. Justices Alito and Thomas would grant Motion for Leave, but provide no other relief.
If you thought the briefing in Texas v. Pennsylvania could not get worse, you are in for a surprise.
More than 100 members of Congress signed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the presidential election, including several prominent members of the group founded to protect "the rule of law."
The four defendant states in Texas v. Pennsylvania file their briefs in opposition.
Seeking to join a last-ditch effort to overturn Joe Biden's victory, the president's attorney says "it is not necessary...to prove that fraud occurred."
17 states submitted a brief supporting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's effort to prevent the selection of electors in four states, but only 6 joined today's motion to intervene. [Update: Meanwhile, Ohio files a brief that's worth reading.]
The Constitution “plainly makes the appointment of electors a state-by-state matter.”
The Supreme Court issued several opinions this morning, displaying a great deal of unanimty.
Will a rightward shift on the bench would result in the reversal of Obergefell? Probably not.
Donald Trump, 17 State Attorneys General, and a bunch of Republican former office holders submit briefs to the Supreme Court.
What original principles would say about this term's big case.
The president and his allies keep losing election cases.
The justices declined to intervene on behalf of Republicans who challenged absentee voting in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania's response to Rep. Kelly's effort to invalidate Pennsylvania's election results.
Embattled Attorney General Ken Paxton is the latest to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the 2020 Presidential election results.
Plus: Congress to vote today on marijuana decriminalization, new study shows bad news for indoor diners, and more...
One Ilya reviews a book written by another. Hopefully, this won't exacerbate #IlyaConfusion!
The Institute for Justice wants the Supreme Court to rule that the Fifth Amendment requires a prompt post-seizure hearing.
A challenge to the federal ban on gun possession by people convicted of felonies gives SCOTUS a chance to rectify its neglect of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment Foundation files a flurry of lawsuits in November, with three aiming at laws restricting public carry.
Is this the Supreme Court’s next big gun rights case?
Plus: Pennsylvania rejects mail-in vote challenge, Facebook begs for regulation, and more...
The New York Times columnist misconstrues the issues at stake in the challenge to New York's restrictions on houses of worship.
The legal doctrine provides rogue government agents cushy protections not available to the little guy.
This is one of several cases that could become moot within weeks.
The legal doctrine is a free pass for rampant government abuse.
The case gives SCOTUS another chance to enforce constitutional limits on disease control measures.
The prospects of a new Congress and a new Administration justifies delaying the case.
The president’s increasingly desperate legal filings won’t change the ultimate result of the 2020 election.
The senators warned that the Court might have to be "restructured" if it did not reach the conclusion they preferred in a Second Amendment case.
When "fundamental rights are restricted" during an emergency, he says, the courts "cannot close their eyes."
It is not clear how the Court will ultimately resolve the case. But it is obvious that a majority of justices oppose invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.
Democratic warnings that Amy Coney Barrett would threaten Obamacare were predictably overblown.
High points and low points of today's oral argument in the latest Affordable Care Act case. (Updated with some summary conclusions.)
Some things to listen for when the Supreme Court hears oral argument in the latest Affordable Care Act case.
Plaintiffs may have had standing in NFIB v. Sebelius, but they don't in California v. Texas.
According to the government, a law aimed at helping victims like King prevents him from holding his assailants accountable.
When must claimants raise appointments-clause challenges?