The Supreme Court's Next Big School Choice Case
What’s at stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.
What’s at stake in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.
In a newly filed brief with the Supreme Court, the Justice Department claims the Consumer Financial Protection Board's structure is unlawful.
History provides a window into how abortion bans will play out if re-instituted.
Plus: Andrew Yang opts out of cancel culture, Andrew Cuomo wants to crack down on flavored e-cigarettes, and more...
Plus: 4 myths about social media law, Trump wants to ban cigarette alternatives, and more...
What’s at stake in Kansas v. Glover.
The Notorious RBG counsels against ideological litmus tests for judicial nominees.
The article is now available for free on SSRN.
Understanding what’s at stake in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia
Plus: North Carolina sues eight more e-cig companies, Tulsi Gabbard fails to meet debate threshold, and more...
It’s the Trump administration vs. civil rights groups on federal protections from workplace discrimination.
“Modern immunity practice—essentially 'heads government wins, tails plaintiffs lose'—leaves many victims violated but not vindicated."
The book by political scientist Michael Dichio argues that the Court has done more to promote centralization than protect states, and is the most thorough analysis to date, of this longstanding issue..
It’s time for SCOTUS to revisit the "border search exception" to the Fourth Amendment.
The five Democrats warn that the Court may have to be "restructured" if it keeps making decisions they don't like.
The justices would be abdicating their duty to uphold the Constitution if they let such political considerations decide legal issues.
The concerns I expressed about her record on property rights when I testified at her 2009 confirmation hearing were justified. But she has compiled an admirable record on several other issues.
Plus: Marijuana banking, suing Facebook, and more...
What’s next for the Second Amendment at SCOTUS?
Episode 5 of Free Speech Rules, from UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
The liberal jurist puts judicial integrity before partisan politics.
The Notorious RBG seems to like her newest colleagues.
In recent interview, Justice Ginsburg says it would be a bad idea to increase the number of justices
“It should have been easy for the Court to say goodbye to Auer.”
The late Supreme Court justice was an inconsistent defender of civil liberties.
The retired Supreme Court justice has died at 99.
"It is illegal for employers in Washington to refuse to hire qualified potential employees because the employer perceives them to be obese."
An admirable man with a distinguished career as a Supreme Court justice. But also the author of some of the more problematic opinions of his era.
The commerce secretary could easily have reinstated the citizenship question if he had been less transparently dishonest.
Did Trump change his mind about the citizenship question twice, or did his underlings ignore him? Which is worse?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit hears oral argument in Texas v. US on July 9, and SCOTUS will revisit the ACA next term.
A strange ambiguity about yesterday's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause
What one executive does, another can undo.
The conservative justice would have permitted a nakedly anti-competitive regulation.
Chief Justice Roberts' irked both Left and Right with his Census decision - encapsulating what we saw the entire SCOTUS term.
State legislatures and Congress can (and probably should) take steps to limit partisan gerrymandering. This was never an issue for the courts to settle.
The Court concludes that the commerce secretary's "contrived" explanation frustrated "meaningful judicial review."
SCOTUS says it is constitutional for police to draw blood from unconscious drunk driving suspects.
Tennessee's residency requirement for retail license applicants "blatantly favors the state's residents and has little relationship to public health and safety," Justice Alito wrote.
The Court's four liberal justicces joined the majority in all three of today's Supreme Court's decisions
Another day, another conflict between the Supreme Court’s Republican appointees in a criminal justice case.
Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling expanded when the government can keep business records secret. That's bad news for transparency
A 6-3 ruling says that the First Amendment protects brand names that are considered “immoral” or “scandalous.”
“The Court usually reads statutes with a presumption of rationality and a presumption of constitutionality.”
The Roberts Court still overturns prior precedent at a lower rate than its post-War predecessors.
“Our role is to enforce the Takings Clause as written.”
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