Supreme Court Weighs Free Speech and the Right to Encourage Illegal Immigration
The justices heard oral arguments this week in United States v. Sineneng-Smith.
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.
The Notorious RBG is a notoriously quick opinion writer, but not this year.
“If the Court is serious about protecting freedom of expression, we should grant review.”
New York City’s successful defense of its arbitrary restrictions on transporting handguns highlights judicial disrespect for the Second Amendment.
Several justices seem skeptical of the claim that revising the rules after SCOTUS agreed to consider a challenge to them made the case moot.
The justices will hear oral arguments today in a major Second Amendment case.
An important development in the legal wrangling over the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court will not rehear Gundy v. United States, but Justice Kavanaugh seems ready to revisit the doctrine.
The Institute for Justice asks the Supreme Court to block sneaky tactics that prevent victims of property grabs from recovering their legal costs.
The legendary jurist and champion of "originalism" who withdrew his name from Supreme Court consideration weighs in on Donald Trump's impeachment, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and his upcoming PBS series on the Constitution.
Plus: New York's rent control expansion has predictable effects, people are boycotting Uber again, and violence continues in Hong Kong.
The Seventh Circuit's ruling on remedies for Janus violations
The constitutional showdown over federalism and immigration approaches SCOTUS.
Todd Henderson on the legal status of Eastern Oklahoma
The Supreme Court should not let police stop cars solely because they’re registered to people with suspended licenses.
Progressive purity tests and Supreme Court wish lists
Who will rein in the ever-expanding administrative state?
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 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 thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks