"This is not just an obvious constitutional infringement—it's hard to imagine a more textbook violation of the First Amendment."
A majority of the Court voiced skepticism about the state’s conceal-carry licensing scheme.
Even justices who take a dim view of Roe v. Wade recognize the law’s chilling implications.
If Texas' SB 8 subterfuge works, it would be a dangerous road map for attacking other constitutional rights. The slippery slope risks on the other side are minor by comparison.
Today's Supreme Court oral argument suggests they will get the votes of six or more justices. If so, it will be a crucial victory for judicial protection of all constitutional rights, not just abortion rights.
Denver cops received qualified immunity after performing a warrantless search of a man’s tablet and trying to delete a video he took of them beating a suspect.
The justice grilled a Texas official over the implications of his state’s abortion law.
Do Americans have a right to know the extent that the government surveils them?
The Firearms Policy Coalition amicus brief offers a simple and effective way to neuter the threat to judicial review posed by SB 8.
However the Supreme Court handles the S.B. 8 litigation, it may unleash mischief in other policy areas.
An amicus brief in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson warns of how S.B. 8's structure could be used to target other constitutional rights.
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.
