Originalism and Personal Jurisdiction
The original rules might not be found in the text.
The original rules might not be found in the text.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito worry about the future of religious freedom. That’s not the same as a call to overturn the decision.
The Supreme Court decides a decent number of environmental cases, but does not seem particularly interested in environmental concerns.
When it comes to criminal justice and abortion, Barrett and Ginsburg may have far more in common than conservatives and progressives seem to realize.
Does participation in a moot court require recusal?
A core element of the latest case against the Affordable Care Act rests on a legal fiction.
As more senators test positive for COVID-19, the ability of the Senate to conduct business is threatened.
The Supreme Court accepted certiorari on a climate change case today.
"If it were me, I would certainly put my nominee forth," Jorgensen says. Partisan bickering over the confirmation process is just "politics as usual."
Judge Amy Coney Barrett participated in a moot court of Texas v. California, and it did not go well for the challengers.
The 7th Circuit judge’s track record suggests she would frequently be a friend of civil liberties.
Supreme Court term limits are a good idea. But they must be enacted by constitutional amendment, not by statute.
Major-party politicians avoid tax simplification almost as aggressively as the rich avoid taxation, argue the Reason Roundtable panelists.
Noah Feldman explains why liberals should want someone like Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court
The opinion, which suggests a strong concern about due process, will nevertheless be cited as evidence of the SCOTUS nominee's "uniformly conservative" record.
If confirmed, she would cement a strong 6-3 conservative majority.
What I wrote in 2016 still applies today.
Progressives are promising to get rid of this long-standing check on the power of raw majorities in the Senate just when it would help them the most.
Reviewing the record of the SCOTUS shortlister.
The SCOTUS contender's 2019 dissent will alarm gun control supporters but reassure people who want judges to take this constitutional provision as seriously as others.
The idea has a lot of merit. But it will be hard to enact, and probably won't do much to end partisan conflict over Supreme Court appointments.
The case is an encouraging sign that the SCOTUS contender is not the sort of judge who bends over backward to shield cops from liability for outrageous misconduct.
Limiting justices to a single 18-year term would de-escalate judicial confirmation fights.
The restrictions imagined by Republicans in 2016 or by Democrats now are nothing but self-serving nonsense.
The prospects are far from ideal. But it is still potentially feasible.
The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals a long-degraded political culture.
While the 7th Circuit judge is often skeptical of the government's position, some of her conclusions will give pause to civil libertarians.
Plus: Trump wants to rob TikTok to pay for "patriotic education," the CDC can't confirm any cases of airplane spread, Virginia uses new "red flag" gun law, and more...
Simply put: Republicans agree not to vote on a replacement for Ginsburg until January; Democrats agree not to pack the Court.
What's next for SCOTUS?
The passing of a feminist heroine, and a giant of American jurisprudence.
Her death creates a vacancy on the Supreme Court just weeks before the presidential election and is likely to spark a major political fight.
October arguments will be over the phone again.
Like it or not, this is the Roberts Court now.
The federal definition of child pornography does not encompass risqué dancing by clothed 11-year-olds.
This year's annual confab is remote, but will still feature the annual B. Kenneth Simon Lecture and release of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Walter Barnette didn't know that his own land had been sold out from under him until it had already happened.
The 5th Circuit judge is a mixed bag from a libertarian perspective.
Plus: The case for paying plasma donors, Joe Arpaio welcomes furries, and more...
This court-invented doctrine shields bad cops from civil liability.
City officials repeatedly gave activists false information about the requirements for getting their initiative on the ballot.
Last month, the 9th Circuit said the opposite. It's a question the Supreme Court might have to resolve.
A collection of essays analyzing one of the more important administrative law decisions of the October 2019 term.
According to the appeals court, the relevant question is what legislators were trying to accomplish.
Two sets of states, the House of Representatives and Solicitor General all get argument time.