Prison Guards Who Forced Naked Inmate To Sleep in Sewage and Urine Were Given Qualified Immunity. SCOTUS Disagreed.
The legal doctrine is a free pass for rampant government abuse.
The legal doctrine is a free pass for rampant government abuse.
The case gives SCOTUS another chance to enforce constitutional limits on disease control measures.
The prospects of a new Congress and a new Administration justifies delaying the case.
The president’s increasingly desperate legal filings won’t change the ultimate result of the 2020 election.
The senators warned that the Court might have to be "restructured" if it did not reach the conclusion they preferred in a Second Amendment case.
When "fundamental rights are restricted" during an emergency, he says, the courts "cannot close their eyes."
It is not clear how the Court will ultimately resolve the case. But it is obvious that a majority of justices oppose invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.
Democratic warnings that Amy Coney Barrett would threaten Obamacare were predictably overblown.
High points and low points of today's oral argument in the latest Affordable Care Act case. (Updated with some summary conclusions.)
Some things to listen for when the Supreme Court hears oral argument in the latest Affordable Care Act case.
Plaintiffs may have had standing in NFIB v. Sebelius, but they don't in California v. Texas.
According to the government, a law aimed at helping victims like King prevents him from holding his assailants accountable.
When must claimants raise appointments-clause challenges?
New Justice Amy Coney Barrett expresses concerns about wider implications of antidiscrimination policies.
The legal fight over mail-in ballots may soon heat up at SCOTUS.
The federal government wants the Supreme Court to rule that the victim has no recourse.
The case doesn't make any change in legal doctrine. But it may be intended to send a message to lower courts.
How different will the newly constituted Court be from what has come before?
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a key case currently before the Supreme Court, there is a strong reason to rule for the government that doesn't apply in most other religious-liberty disputes.
It is easy for originalists to reject challenges to court-packing; but the non-originalist arguments should be spelled out
Both candidates have serious flaws. But a Trump victory would be a much greater evil than the alternative.
Attorneys for Luzerne County are no longer asking the newest justice to recuse from Pennsylvania election litigation.
And maybe a lot longer, since the Supreme Court left the door open to re-hearing a Republican-led challenge seeking to discard late-arriving absentee ballots.
The Supreme Court weighs police shootings and unreasonable seizures in Torres v. Madrid.
The motion was submitted on behalf of the Luzerne County Board of Elections but Luzerne County has voted to have the motion withdrawn.
Decisions that progressives don't like are not necessarily a sign that something has gone horribly wrong.
Plus: Fewer Americans are watching sports, Milton Friedman's powerful TV series turns 40, Amy Coney Barrett joins the Supreme Court, and more...
There's no precedent for a recusal, but there's also no precedent for the current situation.
This time, the justices explain themselves.
All Democrats voted in opposition, making Barrett's confirmation the most partisan since Reconstruction.
The Supreme Court nominee weighs in on a famous case.
A Supreme Court Preview panel that focuses on administrative law.
The implications of this move are far from clear. But it could well be a step to avoid court-packing, rather than promote it.
In a preview of an interview that will air Sunday, Biden says he'd pick "Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives" to serve on the body, which would make broad recommendations for reforming federal courts.
Democrats and Republicans agree on that point, although they disagree about what it means in practice.
"This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.)
The court split 4-4 in what could have been a major election decision.
Among today's cert grants were a case concerning the border wall and another on the Trump Administration's Migrant Protection Protocols
Americans likely learned very little about her judicial philosophy.
They have serious flaws, many of which are on display this week. But we are still better off with them than without them.
In several cases, the Supreme Court nominee voted to allow civil rights lawsuits against officers accused of misconduct.
The senator thinks people with felony records should lose the right to armed self-defense but not the right to cast a ballot.
If that standard were applied to other constitutional rights, no one would be left to enforce them.
Plus: DOJ sues over Melania Trump adviser's book, Justice Clarence Thomas wants to limit Section 230, and more....
Would regular SCOTUS confirmations produce too much volatility in the case law? I am unconvinced.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.