Supreme Court Will Hear Important Property Rights Case
This could result in a ruling overturning a terrible 1985 decision that makes it very difficult to bring takings cases in federal court.
This could result in a ruling overturning a terrible 1985 decision that makes it very difficult to bring takings cases in federal court.
Justice Sotomayor dissents from the denial of certiorari in Wessinger v. Vannoy.
A look into a more restrictionist future for the Second Amendment.
Mandatory fees are an assault on free association.
Indefinite detention carried the day in Jennings v. Rodriguez, but the ruling affirms an important principle that may eventually kill the practice.
The justices have passed up one opportunity after another to clarify the boundaries of the constitutional right to arms.
"It seems to me your argument doesn't have much weight."
He should make a peace offering to Congress now or suffer midterm losses.
On today's podcast: Mona Charen gets booed, the gun control debate reignites, public sector unions suck, and Olympic curling is surprisingly awesome.
Janus v. AFSCME could end mandatory union dues payment. Counter-intuitively, it might strengthen the labor movement.
Are Committee Reports and other legislative documents helpful guides to legislative intent?
The social worker at the heart of Janus v. AFSCME explains why no public employee should be forced to pay union dues.
A self-proclaimed "constitutional bounty hunter" is unlikely to be freed, but his case sets a significant precedent for criminal appeals.
The National Constitution Center invited Alicia Hickok and me to debate Janus; Ms. Hickok wrote an amicus brief supporting Janus, and I signed an amicus brief supporting the AFSCME.
The Supreme Court hears a case that might crush government unions. The unions are upset. Stossel debates a union official.
Would extend "right to work" principles to government employment.
The government always compels taxpayers to fund the management side of management-labor bargaining in public workplaces. Given this, why should there be a First Amendment problem with compelled funding (through agency fees as well as taxes) of both sides?
"The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court's constitutional orphan."
Supreme Court justice says the #MeToo movement is important, but so is due process.
In a wide-ranging interview, the "Notorious RBG" suggests colleges campuses are not providing adequate process to the accused.
Here are the SCOTUS cases to watch in February.
Professor Rick Hasen on why its a bad idea to treat Supreme Court justices like celebrities (and why justices should not embrace their celebrity either).
The Senate confirmed a record number of federal appellate court nominees in 2017.
A new appreciation of the great abolitionist on the 200th anniversary of his birth.
Gorsuch advances another property rights theory of the Fourth Amendment that Alito rejects.
Can public sector unions force recalcitrant workers to pay dues, or does that violate the First Amendment?
The Supreme Court issues three opinions, for a grand total of four so far this term.
If you hear "papers, please" on a Greyhound, thank the Supreme Court.
I'm all for carefully reading the words of the Constitution, and applying the distinctions that it draws -- but we need to make sure we're understanding just what those distinctions are.
Will Baude and I have cosigned a new amicus brief on this in Janus v. AFSCME.
The Supreme Court agrees to hear challenges to Travel Ban 3.0
A very interesting analysis of the Supreme Court's new Internet tax case (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.), by Notre Dame Prof. Randy Kozel.
The Supreme Court is releasing opinions at the slowest rate in over a century.
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. should be overruled.
Another day, another shady land grab scheme by New York officials.
When it comes to "opening up" the First Amendment, the president's bark is worse than his bite.
Justices hear challenge to Virginia court's expansion of warrantless vehicle searches.
Some would call it the second coming of Marbury v. Madison.
The awful precedents that helped empower Attorney General Jeff Sessions
The Supreme Court is asked to review an expansive interpretation of the Fish & Wildlife Service's authority to designate critical habitat for listed species.
Why illegally obtained evidence is generally inadmissible in court.
While the Trump Administration supports Supreme Court review, it's not clear there's enough in the case to interest the justices.
Two states attempt to dictate how farmers outside their boundaries treat their animals.