This Business Is Suing the Government Over a Coronavirus Closure Order
"These uncompensated seizures violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
"These uncompensated seizures violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
Emergency restrictions should always be lifted as soon as the crisis has sufficiently abated.
Kansas “will not wholly exonerate a defendant on the ground that his illness prevented him from recognizing his criminal act as morally wrong.”
Religious liberty, public health, and the police powers of the states
The coronavirus upends business as usual at SCOTUS.
Weighing the state and local response to COVID-19
Like many federal appellate courts, the Supreme Court is putting arguments on hold.
Fatal police shootings and the Fourth Amendment
The Supreme Court weighs abortion regulation in June Medical Services v. Russo.
Mississippi has a reputation for being one of the most obese states in the nation, as well as having one of America's highest incarceration rates. Neither will be improved by treating unlicensed dieticians like serious criminals.
The Senate minority leader threatened two justices by name, and then he lied about it.
My take on today's decision to consider the Obamacare severability case.
A high-profile gun case actually presents meaty questions of administrative law
“Why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?”
Today's cert grant is based on the importance of the case, not the quality of the arguments
The legal battle over immigration, federalism, and executive power heats up.
If the Court is going to abolish the 20th century remedies, can we at least have the 19th century remedies back?
The justices heard oral arguments this week in United States v. Sineneng-Smith.
"A cross-border shooting claim has foreign relations and national security implications."
The Supreme Court is about to tackle the issue.
Under New York's rules, licensed pistol and revolver owners were not allowed to leave home with their handguns unless they were traveling to or from a shooting range.
What’s at stake in United States v. Sineneng-Smith.
The Institute for Justice calls on the Supreme Court to put a stop to it.
Other possible legal challenges to Trump's expanded travel ban may be precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii. This one is not.
The Supreme Court will decide whether three Muslims who refused to be informants can sue for damages under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
What’s at stake in Torres v. Madrid
It may be better only in so far as it is much more likely to get invalidated by the courts.
It's time to stop trying to cartelize the market for law clerks
What’s at stake in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
What’s at stake in Michigan v. Wood
A major constitutional clash is unfolding at SCOTUS.
The presidential hopeful weighs in on the Supreme Court.
What’s at stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
An interesting amicus brief by Professor John Harrison in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB
The article explains why the Supreme Court was justified in overruling longstanding precedent in this important recent constitutional property rights case.
The justices declined a Democratic request to fast track a decision on the law.
The Institute for Justice asks the Supreme Court to clarify a doctrine that shields cops from responsibility for outrageous conduct.
A new abortion case raises an old question.
Newly released data suggests Census analysts dramatically over-estimated the extent to which a citizenship question would discourage responses.
Is the Rule of Law a Law of Rules or a Law of Law? Some conservatives seem to prefer the former. Should they?
The legal basis for such a ruling is hard to find.
The shifting understanding of the requirement to buy health insurance elevates form above substance.
The Ninth Circuit says no, and the Supreme Court isn't weighing in.
Influencing when a decision is issued can affect the attention it receives.
The decision leaves intact local governments’ power to force private developers to build affordable housing.