Why the End of Chevron Could Be a Win for Immigrants
“Immigration is an area of the law where the partisan alignments break down over Chevron.”
“Immigration is an area of the law where the partisan alignments break down over Chevron.”
Plus: A disappointing first round of "Baby YIMBY" grant awards, President Joe Biden endorses rent control, and House Republicans propose cutting housing spending.
Plus: Trump immunity ruling, cosmopolitan thinking on immigration, cringe Kamala, and more...
By requiring "absolute" immunity for some "official acts" and "presumptive" immunity for others, the justices cast doubt on the viability of Donald Trump's election interference prosecution.
The Court is remanding these two cases for more analysis—but it made its views on some key issues clear.
Her concurrence is a reminder that the application of criminal law should not be infected by personal animus toward any given defendant.
The decision also negates two counts of the federal indictment accusing Donald Trump of illegally interfering in the 2020 presidential election.
Homeless advocates say the court's decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson gives local governments a blank check to "to arrest or fine those with no choice but to sleep outdoors."
The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law allows or requires.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way.
In a 5-4 decision, the male justices side with the state and industry challengers and the female justices side with the Environmental Protection Agency
The majority and the dissenters agree that the drug was "central" to "the opioid crisis," even though there is little evidence to support that thesis.
The decision rejects a system in which the agency imposes civil penalties after investigating people and validating its own allegations.
The decision reverses the Court's previous stay of a lower court decision blocking part of the law.
Although the FBI never produced evidence that Ali Hemani was a threat to national security, it seems determined to imprison him by any means necessary.
The verdict in Murthy v. Missouri is a big, flashing green light that jawboning may resume.
Even if one thinks the federal government crossed the line in pushing more aggressive social-media-platform content moderation policies, plaintiffs must still satisfy the traditional requirements of Article III standing.
Murthy v. Missouri challenges government efforts to suppress dissenting viewpoints on social media.
Although critics say the Court’s current approach is unworkable, it has been undeniably effective at defeating constitutionally dubious gun regulations.
There is a great deal of panic surrounding the "extreme" nature of the current Court. But that is often not based in reality.
The Court's grant of certiorari is limited to only one of the issues in this litigation.
Two years after the Dobbs decision, Americans are increasingly concerned with how abortion bans affect women with wanted pregnancies.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.
Paul Erlinger was sentenced to 15 years in prison based largely on a determination made by a judge—not a jury.
The Court says "a credible threat" justifies a ban on gun possession but does not address situations where there is no such judicial finding.
The justices are rushing to close out the term before the end of June.
The justices ruled that "objective evidence" of retaliation does not require "very specific comparator evidence."
Chevron deference, a doctrine created by the Court in 1984, gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the meaning of various laws. But the justices may overturn that.
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.
Plus: A listener asks the editors about the Selective Service.
The justices still have over one-third of the term's cases remaining.
Six justices agreed that federal regulators had misconstrued the statutory definition of a machine gun.
The justice's benign comments set off a lengthy news cycle and have been treated as a scandal by some in the media. Why?
In his AHM v. FDA concurrence, Justice Thomas suggests the Court needs to rethink associational standing and questions whether it comports with Article III.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted during oral arguments, the right to sell a shirt is different from the right to be the only one who can sell that shirt.
A "desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the Court's opinion.
Not a single justice was impressed by the unimpressive standing theories offered in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA.
The "most pro-life president in American history" cannot please hardline activists without alienating voters.
The president's son, who faces up to 25 years in prison for conduct that violated no one's rights, can still challenge his prosecution on Second Amendment grounds.
The lack of a clear rationale for charging Trump with 34 felonies raises a due process issue that is likely to figure in his appeals.
Their cases illustrate the injustice of taking away people’s Second Amendment rights based on nonviolent crimes
The former president's loss of his Second Amendment rights highlights an arbitrary restriction that applies to many people with no history of violence.
The ACLU, another polarizing organization, was willing to defend the NRA in court. That should tell you that some things aren't partisan.
An ideologically diverse mix of individuals and organizations supports a Texas journalist who was arrested for asking questions.
The justices have been slow and quite agreeable -- so far.