Supreme Court Rejects Opportunity to Reconsider Penn Central
Justice Thomas dissented from denial of certiorari by himself to urge a revamp of Takings Clause jurisprudence.
Justice Thomas dissented from denial of certiorari by himself to urge a revamp of Takings Clause jurisprudence.
Vague laws are typically vague for a reason.
The appeals court concluded that the officers' use of force was reasonable in the circumstances.
The unfolding legal saga of City of Hayward v. Stoddard-Nunez
Abrasive, tasteless, and uncompromising, Flynt undoubtedly made the world safer for speech of all varieties.
Does the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures include the right to be free from an unreasonable attempted seizure?
With Justice Barrett joining Justice Kagan, does Dunn v. Smith represent a shift on the Court?
The panelists included Joshua Braver (University of Wisconsin), Tom Jipping (Heritage Foundation), and myself.
The plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States may now file a petition for certiorari. They should be careful what they wish for.
The Department of Justice is now willing to defend the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and the severability of the penalty-less mandate.
The newest justice makes her debut in a brief concurrence on the shadow docket.
If the Supreme Court opts to dismiss the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act on standing grounds, this will not leave the ACA particularly vulnerable to future challenge.
A new case tests the limits of the “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment.
It’s a terrible idea that violates Section 230, but is it actually unconstitutional? Don’t be so sure.
May public schools punish students for off-campus social media posts?
What we know of the planned commission's membership makes it unlikely it will recommend court-packing. But that doesn't mean the issue will simply go away.
An interesting question of institutional norms
The new president availed himself of Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Justice Barrett should revisit her views on this wrongly maligned case.
The Department of Justice rushes to prevent mercy before a new administration can take over.
Plus: Amazon responds to Parler lawsuit, Trump's execution spree continues, a bad ruling on safe injection houses, and more...
Justice Clint Bolick dissents in Arizona v. Mixton.
Trump deserves to be remembered for what his words and actions have shown him to be.
The incoming president can bring some much-needed professional diversity to the federal bench.
Lin Wood's bizarre charges give you a sense of the advisers Trump is consulting as he continues to insist that he won the presidential election.
Is the chief justice just a politician in robes?
Trump thinks the judiciary cannot be trusted to reveal the massive fraud that he says denied him a second term.
It's time to breathe some life back into the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to Trump's plans for being "premature" until the administration actually does what it says it plans to do.
The justices emphasized that K-12 schools are currently scheduled to reopen after winter break.
Don’t expand the “hot pursuit” exception to the Fourth Amendment.
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.”