The Gun-Free School Zones Act Is Doubly Dubious
The federal law relies on a risible reading of the Commerce Clause to restrict a constitutional right.
The federal law relies on a risible reading of the Commerce Clause to restrict a constitutional right.
Donald Trump's claim that the appeals court ruled against him for partisan or ideological reasons is hard to take seriously.
The Administration's arguments have more doctrinal support than some might think
"The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity," the Supreme Court wrote in a ruling this year.
Seven judges agreed that the president's assertion of unlimited authority to tax imports is illegal and unconstitutional.
The appeals court rejected most of the arguments in favor of that policy, saying "the government must show non-intoxicated marijuana users pose a risk of future danger."
Or will the justices say that Trump fired her for illegal reasons?
Plus: An impressive book by a Supreme Court justice.
The appeals court concluded that the government had failed to show that policy is consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Asking SCOTUS to hear a case is not the same thing as convincing SCOTUS to hear a case.
The 2016 brief defended the understanding of the 14th Amendment that the president wants to overturn.
SCOTUS will soon decide.
A New York Times column on the Supreme Court offers a misleading picture and errant analysis.
My Cato Institute colleague Walter Olson explains.
The technology enables routine surveillance that would have troubled the Fourth Amendment’s framers.
The federal government has embraced unconstitutional tactics and now wants SCOTUS to do the same.
The Commerce Clause protects free trade between the states.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is seeking an injunction that would protect noncitizens at The Stanford Daily from arrest and removal because of their published work.
In a rare and significant decision, a federal court ruled Brandon Fulton can sue directly under the Takings Clause—without Congress creating a specific remedy.
The president is claiming "unbounded authority" to impose import taxes based on a law that does not mention them.
The case argues that, since the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated taxes on the transfer of certain weapons, the constitutional basis for registering those weapons no longer exists.
Joe and Russell Marino will finally get their day in court. The ruling represents a turning of the tide when it comes to the fairness of such proceedings, where agencies have long played both prosecutor and jury.
The appeals court held that the government may require COVID-19 shots based purely on the benefits to recipients.
In Chandler v. Brown, the Sixth Circuit may have been too quick (again) to grant a habeas petition.
A defense to Steve Vladeck's critique and a brief comment on Adrian Vermeule's related op-ed in the New York Times.
Rushing out opinions can lock in erroneous conclusions and create problematic precedent.
The anticommandeering doctrine stands in the way of Trump’s immigration crackdown.
Years after home equity theft was ruled unconstitutional, Michigan keeps looking for ways around the ruling.
A federal court concluded the official was entitled to qualified immunity in a case that united two unlikely allies.
Local officials initially were unfazed by complaints that the constant surveillance raised serious privacy concerns.
The Supreme Court's critics are too quick to assume the Court's orders are motivated by political considerations as opposed to principle.
Environmental Protection Agency
Idaho landowners are facing ruinous fines because the Army Corps of Engineers refuses to follow the Supreme Court’s Clean Water Act ruling in Sackett v. EPA.
The judgment is not surprising, since the president's reading of the 14th Amendment contradicts its text and history, plus 127 years of Supreme Court precedent.
Plus: Ozzy Osbourne, RIP.
Further indication that independent agencies will not be "independent" much longer.
Trump v. CASA was important, but it is not clear district courts have gotten the message.
Plus: Did Mario Vargas Llosa write the world’s greatest political novel?
The contrast between the two cases illustrates the haphazard impact of an arbitrary, constitutionally dubious gun law.
The state just cracked down on a form of state-sanctioned robbery, where governments seized and sold homes over minor tax delinquencies—and then pocketed the profits.
In response to a Second Amendment lawsuit, the government says the restriction "serves legitimate objectives" and "only modestly burdens" the right to arms.
Judge James C. Ho recently described a troubling phenomenon on the 5th Circuit and the government abuse it enables.
Plus: Cuomo has a hard time taking no for an answer, a pro-party manifesto, Trump's about-face on Ukraine, and more...
Plus: A fond farewell to Black Sabbath.
There's a tension between Progressives' efforts to delegitimize the courts and hopes the judiciary to constrain executive power.
The prosecution, the latest example of local attempts to criminalize news reporting, is blatantly at odds with First Amendment principles.
Justice Jackson Sees Her Colleagues' Rulings As Threats to Democracy and the Rule of Law
The government’s lawyers also say that supposedly nonexistent policy is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment.
Plus: The Supreme Court declines to hear major eviction moratorium case, Maine passes zoning reform, and why tourist traps are good, actually.
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