Would Derek Chauvin Receive Qualified Immunity for Killing George Floyd?
The answer speaks volumes about the extent to which that doctrine protects police officers from liability for outrageous conduct.
The answer speaks volumes about the extent to which that doctrine protects police officers from liability for outrageous conduct.
Good news for free association at college!
COVID-19 control measures violate the First Amendment when they arbitrarily favor secular conduct.
SCOTUS rules 5-4 in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.
Can the government compel speech? For Supreme Court justices, that seems to depend on the content of that speech.
Plus: More states pause reopening, Oregon measure to legalize psilocybin moves forward, and more...
And no, it wasn't the shoplifter's home.
SCOTUS rules 5–4 in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The federal government hasn’t executed a prisoner since 2003. We may see three killed in July.
Roberts dissented in 2016 when SCOTUS struck down an abortion law. What changed this time around?
The Chief Justice provides the pivotal vote in the June Medical Services abortion case and Seila Law v. CFPB.
Professor Christopher Walker explores a potential wrinkle in the DACA decision.
Professor Zach Price on the Chief Justice Roberts' Decision in Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
These reforms would protect all Americans while reducing racial disparities in policing.
Police officers shouldn't be above the law.
Plus: Seattle labor coalition gives cops the boot, supermarkets are a miracle of modern markets, Klobuchar is the last person to realize she won't be Biden's VP, and more...
Defying expectations, Roberts joined with the four liberals on the court to rule against the Trump administration's elimination of the program.
In what appears to be a quite narrow ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts holds that if Trump wants to get rid of DACA, he'll have to try again.
Trump is caught in a trap of his own making.
That uniform rule is different from the policies favored by Donald Trump and House Democrats.
The Equality Act would significantly expand government power and it also threatens religious freedom.
A lower court precedent left unchallenged would unjustly compromise First Amendment protest rights. The Supreme Court should reconsider.
SCOTUS did more today than decide that Title VII applies to employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status.
"Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
"I have previously expressed my doubts about our qualified immunity jurisprudence," writes Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in a dissent.
"The fundamental protections set forth in our Constitution," Thomas writes, should be "applied equally to all citizens."
Justice Neil Gorsuch's majority decision offers a textualist argument for the ruling.
Justice Gorsuch writes for six-justice majority that discrimination based upon sexual orientation or transgender status is sex discrimination under Title VII.
Some progressive activist groups are trying to resuscitate the idea. Whether they succeed remains to be seen.
Pundits often speak of the judiciary in terms of liberal or conservative judges issuing liberal or conservative opinions. The reality is far more complicated.
“Officers don’t have the time to pull out law books and analyze the fine points of judicial precedent.”
Abolishing qualified immunity is a crucial step in holding police accountable for violating our rights.
It's not likely to have the chilling effect he expects. Unfortunately, it might not do as much as criminal justice reformers expect either.
The justices weigh abortion, school choice, and federal anti-discrimination law.
The Supreme Court shows a willingness to enforce limits on Article III standing.
As SCOTUS declines to issue an injunction, the chief justice says the state's COVID-19 control measures seem consistent with the First Amendment.
"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."
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! 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 thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
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