Supreme Court to Weigh Rules for Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers in California
Crisis pregnancy centers in California say the state's "Reproductive FACT Act" violates their First Amendment rights.
Crisis pregnancy centers in California say the state's "Reproductive FACT Act" violates their First Amendment rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court said local regulators could treat two lots owned by the same family as if they were a single parcel. A new law aims to stop that.
In the 5th Circuit, it's shaping up to be Trump vs. Trump's judicial picks.
The Senate just confirmed two more of Trump's judicial picks.
A potential Supreme Court case challenges federal protection of an intrastate species with no commercial value.
Robert Bork, majority rule, and District of Columbia v. Heller
Microsoft resisted order for emails on servers in Ireland.
Columbia's Philip Hamburger says this "monarchical" system of government grew in power just as blacks and women saw an expansion of their voting rights.
The case has already produced some fun SCOTUS banter. It could have major consequences for due process and police accountability.
The vote confirms a split that invites the Supreme Court to settle the issue.
Willett picked to fill vacancy on U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.
SCOTUS will hear Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 this term.
Two cases give the Court a chance to reconsider its counterintuitive conclusions about commitment and registration.
It all started with President Woodrow Wilson.
An appeal asks SCOTUS to decide the question, noting that the program has released just one "patient" in 23 years.
The relationship between Lochner v. New York and Buchanan v. Warley
Social science could help identify objective principles for creating competitive voting districts.
Ted Cruz thinks a sex toy ban is stupid. That doesn't mean he thinks it's unconstitutional.
Claims of "frightening and high" recidivism rates, endorsed by the Supreme Court, have no basis in fact.
Trump administration argues the First Amendment protects right to decline.
The Supreme Court will arguments in Carpenter v. U.S. in the coming term.
Federalism is alive and kicking in the age of Trump.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association this fall.
The third-party doctrine is at odds with the Fourth Amendment.
Brief argues custom-made cakes, flowers are expressive acts protected by First Amendment.
Company asks the Supreme Court to hear its case for being allowed to put 3D printing plans for guns on its website.
That is not the law, and it shouldn't be.
Libertarian legal ideas are gaining ground.
Is gun control a political thicket that unelected judges should not enter?
"The Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach."
Asset forfeiture has "led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses," Thomas writes.
The possible replacements include Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett.
Despite framing to the contrary by some.
Irrational, half-baked anti-terrorist policies are not necessarily unconstitutional.
Understanding the Supreme Court decision at the heart of the travel ban case.
SCOTUS agrees to hear travel ban cases, will schedule oral arguments for October.
"I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen."
Can states force religious bakers to provide services to same-sex couples?
Chief Justice Roberts: "Today's decision knocks the definition of 'private property' loose from its foundation."
The Court unanimously rejects the government's position that any misstatement by an applicant can justify denaturalization years later.
Also, she thinks the Kent State shootings are an argument for censorship.
Asset forfeiture "has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses."
The Supreme Court to decide if gerrymandering is unconstitutional
Starting with Roe v. Wade, the bestselling author argues in Commentary, the high court has removed too many topics from legislative debate.
The justices say the law's "unprecedented" and "staggering" scope violates the First Amendment.
"Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.