Protest Organizers Shouldn't Be Liable for Other People's Crimes
A lower court precedent left unchallenged would unjustly compromise First Amendment protest rights. The Supreme Court should reconsider.
A lower court precedent left unchallenged would unjustly compromise First Amendment protest rights. The Supreme Court should reconsider.
SCOTUS did more today than decide that Title VII applies to employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status.
"Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
"I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence," writes Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissent.
"The fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution," Thomas writes, should be "applied equally to all citizens."
Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority decision offers a textualist argument for the ruling.
Justice Gorsuch writes for six-justice majority that discrimination based upon sexual orientation or transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII.
Some progressive activist groups are trying to resuscitate the idea. Whether they succeed remains to be seen.
Pundits often speak of the judiciary in terms of liberal or conservative judges issuing liberal or conservative opinions. The reality is far more complicated.
“Officers don’t have the time to pull out law books and analyze the fine points of judicial precedent.”
Abolishing qualified immunity is a crucial step in holding police accountable for violating our rights.
It's not likely to have the chilling effect he expects. Unfortunately, it might not do as much as criminal justice reformers expect either.
The justices weigh abortion, school choice, and federal anti-discrimination law.
The Supreme Court shows a willingness to enforce limits on Article III standing.
As SCOTUS declines to issue an injunction, the chief justice says the state's COVID-19 control measures seem consistent with the First Amendment.
"Although California's guidelines place restrictions on places of worship," Roberts wrote, "those restrictions appear consistent with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment."
Do mandatory, integrated state bar associations violate the First Amendment? Two justices would like the Court to reconsider this question.
The Supreme Court could announce as early as Monday that it's revisiting qualified immunity, a doctrine that shields rotten cops from civil rights lawsuits.
Supreme Court precedent suggests COVID-19 restrictions that discriminate against churches are presumptively unconstitutional.
A flawed argument for judicial passivity in cases of government regulation.
A federal judge ordered officials at Elkton to stop "thumbing their nose" at their own authority to release inmates at risk of coronavirus.
The idea is not so far-fetched.
Following Georgia's ruling in favor of a lactation consultant, Pennsylvania’s high court reviews another “unreasonable” occupational licensing scheme.
But the high court may consider other cases that could overturn the outrageous legal doctrine.
Hamas "used and relied on" Facebook "as among its most important tools to facilitate and carry out its terrorist activity," the plaintiffs claimed.
Does the text of Title VII prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status?
"We have long interpreted the Georgia Constitution as protecting a right to work in one's chosen profession free from unreasonable government interference."
An under-the-radar environmental lawsuit could provide the Supreme Court another opportunity to revive the nondelegation doctrine.
What could happen—and what to do about it—if you get pulled over by the cops
In a brief exchange during a recent oral argument, the Justice suggested the Court should reconsider giving states "special solicitude" under Massachusetts v. EPA
We submitted another strange bedfellows amicus brief on severability in the Texas ACA case.
The Supreme Court weighs the congressional subpoena power in Trump v. Mazars.
This week the justices are considering 13 petitions involving the pernicious doctrine of qualified immunity.
Do legislative subpoenas really need a limiting principle?
There was a potentially pivotal exchange in today's Supreme Court oral argument over the House subpoenas seeking the President's financial records.
A Reuters report suggests changes in qualified immunity doctrine have immunized police officers sued for misconduct.
The Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
A Reuters investigation reveals courts "growing tendency" to grant cops immunity from civil rights lawsuits.
The anti-prostitution pledge is unconstitutional when applied to U.S. nonprofits. But the feds say it's still OK to compel speech from these groups' foreign affiliates.
Not everything that states do in the name of protecting public health is consistent with the Constitution.
Courts so far have not been inclined to ask that question.
CNN reports that Attorney General Barr is (again) voicing opposition to DOJ's argument that zeroing out the mandate penalty should upend the entire law.
The Obamacare contraception mandate continues to cause legal trouble.
Infectious disease, public health, and the Constitution
Unprecedented live audio streaming of oral arguments could signal more openness.
The Court decided that New York City's revision of its restrictions on transporting guns gave the plaintiffs what they sought.
A long-running legal battle ends with a victory for open government.
The ruling says health insurers are owed money that Congress never appropriated.