Justice Breyer, Democracy, and Expertise
His judicial philosophy emphasized promotion of democracy, a theme in tension with his emphasis on the need for deference to expertise.
His judicial philosophy emphasized promotion of democracy, a theme in tension with his emphasis on the need for deference to expertise.
SCOTUS rejected attempt to bypass Congress with an emergency regulation.
Assuming Biden can replace him, the Court's ideological composition probably won't change much.
After more than a decade of subversion, the Supreme Court has a chance to rectify this situation.
Insofar as the Court was concerned about pretext, it may be more difficult for the EPA to reduce greenhouse gases using regulatory authority to control emissions.
The Supreme Court could decide the fate of affirmative action at public and private universities.
Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin's support for qualified immunity is in opposition to the principles he says he stands for.
Democracy means accepting results you're not happy about.
Starbucks has decided the vaccine mandate isn't good for their business
John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Sonia Sotomayor have all denied Nina Totenberg's story about a SCOTUS dispute over masking.
On government curation and government speech.
The question for the Supreme Court was not whether the policy was wise but whether it was legal.
Nina Totenberg reports on potential strains among the justices and Justice Gorsuch's decision not to wear a mask at argument.
The applicability of Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing -- no, wait! I promise it's important . . . .
Without judicial review, liberals confronting a Republican-controlled legislature will have no opportunity to seek constitutional redress in federal court.
The crux of the argument is the distinction "between occupational risk and risk more generally."
Assorted observations on yesterday's opinions, what they mean, and what comes next.
Separately, the court upheld Biden's mandate that health care workers must be vaccinated to work at medical facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funding.
By divided votes, the justices entered stayed t the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard and stayed the lower court injunctions against the mandate that Medicare and Medicaid service providers require their employees to get vaccinated.
Defenders of the CDC eviction moratorium predicted a "tsunami" of evictions would happen if the policy were rescinded. That hasn't happened.
Does it matter that the year Congress enacted the Occupational Safety and Health Act was as proximate to the Spanish Flu as to today?
The justice's reference to a national "police power" raised some eyebrows.
The caliber of questioning by the justices was not up to the usual standards, but the justices seemed to understand the two rules at issue present different questions.
The article explains why SB 8 potentially poses a threat to constitutional rights far beyond the abortion context, and how future court decisions could potentially mitigate it.
In my view, the Court should uphold the CMS health care worker vaccination requirement, but rule against the overreaching OSHA rule imposed on employers with 100 or more workers.
Most of the justices appear to be skeptical of the argument that the agency has the power it is asserting.
"We have over 100,000 children, which we've never had before, in serious condition and many on ventilators," said the justice, wrongly.
"The First Amendment was never intended to curtail speech and debate within legislative bodies."
The question of whether to stay the BIden Administration rule requiring large employers to mandate vaccinations or testing is now before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has asked for responses to the federal government's stay request.
Federal regulators have permanently lifted a requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in person.
The Institute for Justice wants the Supreme Court to review the case—and to clarify the proper scope of "investigatory stops."
I've heard that breaking constitutional norms is a bad thing
Gavin Newsom is exploring legislation to authorize private civil actions against people who sell "assault weapons" or gun kits.
“There is profound disagreement over whether Court expansion at this moment in time would be wise.”
The justices show little interest in vaping regulation on the shadow docket, but may yet review the FDA's behavior in the regular course.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling largely precluding pre-enforcement challenge of the Texas abortion law, Governor Newsom calls for similar action on guns.
Things are far from completely clear. But Justice Gorsuch's opinion may give preenforcement challenges to SB 8 and other similar laws a good deal more wiggle room than many think.
The Court allowed claims against health care regulators to proceed, but that will not prevent the private civil actions authorized by the law.
The Court rules that the lawsuit against SB 8 can proceed by targeting state licensing officials. But the implications for future cases are far from completely clear.
The private litigation against some defendants may proceed, but the federal lawsuit is gone.
The justices heard oral arguments this week in Carson v. Makin.
Regulators insist Fourth Amendment protections don’t apply to administrative searches.
The report doesn't endorse court-packing or term limits. But it's generally more favorable to the latter than the former. It also provides valuable overview of a wide range of SCOTUS-related issues.
Plus: A reminder to Bill de Blasio of what "incentive" really means
“All of those…just come out of Lochner.”
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