"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.
Three opinions, no blockbusters, but an odd (and unprecedented?) 5-4 split - and interesting order on Congressional subpoenas.
Most of the commentary on the Supreme Court's rejection of last minute judicial intervention glossed over the underlying constitutional question.
The Court could have, and probably should have, pushed these cases over to the 2020-21 Term
Environmental groups were worried the Court would curtail CWA jurisdiction in Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund. It didn't.
I have a contribution (coauthored with Shelley Ross Saxer) in this symposium on last year's important Supreme Court takings decision.
A 50-year-old precedent was tossed, which caused three justices to dissent.
All three of today's Supreme Court decisions featured unusual alignments among the justices.
The president contemplates a sweeping exercise of executive authority.
A federal judge defended religious freedom by blocking a misguided ban on drive-in Easter services.
"Delaying abortions by weeks does nothing to further the State's interest in combatting COVID-19," they say.
Will the Supreme Court question the underpinnings of the modern administrative state?
“Can an independent federal agency that is supposed to regulate commodity futures assert power over every single purchase or sale of a commodity?”
Marquette University law professor Chad Oldfather offers a helpful explainer laying out the issues in the SCOTUS and SCOWIS decisions on the Wisconsin primary elections.
The justice filed a lone dissent in Kansas v. Glover.
“The federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself.”
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
