If the Supreme Court opts to dismiss the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act on standing grounds, this will not leave the ACA particularly vulnerable to future challenge.
A new case tests the limits of the “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment.
It’s a terrible idea that violates Section 230, but is it actually unconstitutional? Don’t be so sure.
May public schools punish students for off-campus social media posts?
What we know of the planned commission's membership makes it unlikely it will recommend court-packing. But that doesn't mean the issue will simply go away.
An interesting question of institutional norms
The new president availed himself of Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Justice Barrett should revisit her views on this wrongly maligned case.
The Department of Justice rushes to prevent mercy before a new administration can take over.
Plus: Amazon responds to Parler lawsuit, Trump's execution spree continues, a bad ruling on safe injection houses, and more...
Justice Clint Bolick dissents in Arizona v. Mixton.
Trump deserves to be remembered for what his words and actions have shown him to be.
The incoming president can bring some much-needed professional diversity to the federal bench.
Lin Wood's bizarre charges give you a sense of the advisers Trump is consulting as he continues to insist that he won the presidential election.
Is the chief justice just a politician in robes?
Trump thinks the judiciary cannot be trusted to reveal the massive fraud that he says denied him a second term.
It's time to breathe some life back into the Privileges or Immunities Clause.
The Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to Trump's plans for being "premature" until the administration actually does what it says it plans to do.
The justices emphasized that K-12 schools are currently scheduled to reopen after winter break.
Don’t expand the “hot pursuit” exception to the Fourth Amendment.
A review of Richard Lazarus' chronicle of the Massachusetts v. EPA litigation in The New Atlantis.
Given the conspicuous lack of credible evidence, the president's charges can be accepted only as a matter of faith.
Conservative judges have stymied Trump in his election challenges - and many other cases where his positions went against their legal principles. But a populist/nationalist GOP could gradually change the nature of conservative jurisprudence.
Although the president says the justices "chickened out," other courts have considered and rejected the merits of his legal arguments.
A 7-1 Supreme Court rejected Texas's claims against New Mexico
By his own account, the Texas senator is committed to defending a dishonest, amoral, narcissistic bully.
Trump’s judicial humiliation is now complete.
With Friday's ruling from the Supreme Court, the result of this year's presidential election is clear. Joe Biden won. It is over.
The Court made the right decision and demonstrated its independence. But it may not still claims that the election was somehow stolen from Trump.
The Supreme Court, 7-2, voted to deny Texas AG Paxton's motion for leave to file its election complaint. Justices Alito and Thomas would grant Motion for Leave, but provide no other relief.
If you thought the briefing in Texas v. Pennsylvania could not get worse, you are in for a surprise.
More than 100 members of Congress signed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the presidential election, including several prominent members of the group founded to protect "the rule of law."
The four defendant states in Texas v. Pennsylvania file their briefs in opposition.
Seeking to join a last-ditch effort to overturn Joe Biden's victory, the president's attorney says "it is not necessary...to prove that fraud occurred."
17 states submitted a brief supporting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's effort to prevent the selection of electors in four states, but only 6 joined today's motion to intervene. [Update: Meanwhile, Ohio files a brief that's worth reading.]
The Constitution “plainly makes the appointment of electors a state-by-state matter.”
The Supreme Court issued several opinions this morning, displaying a great deal of unanimty.
Will a rightward shift on the bench would result in the reversal of Obergefell? Probably not.
Donald Trump, 17 State Attorneys General, and a bunch of Republican former office holders submit briefs to the Supreme Court.
What original principles would say about this term's big case.
The president and his allies keep losing election cases.
The justices declined to intervene on behalf of Republicans who challenged absentee voting in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania's response to Rep. Kelly's effort to invalidate Pennsylvania's election results.
Embattled Attorney General Ken Paxton is the latest to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the 2020 Presidential election results.
Plus: Congress to vote today on marijuana decriminalization, new study shows bad news for indoor diners, and more...
One Ilya reviews a book written by another. Hopefully, this won't exacerbate #IlyaConfusion!
The Institute for Justice wants the Supreme Court to rule that the Fifth Amendment requires a prompt post-seizure hearing.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks