D.C. Circuit Takes McGahn Case En Banc (Again)
Unless President Trump is re-elected, it is not clear this will matter.
Unless President Trump is re-elected, it is not clear this will matter.
"If we are to protect our institutions, and protect the freedoms, and protect the rule of law that is the basis for society and the freedom we all enjoy, if we want that for our children and our children's children, then we need to participate in that work."
An attempt to protect litigant privacy meant that binding precedent was vanished from Westlaw.
Remember Emoluments?
Senator Hawley asks ACB about OWH's dissent.
You can't talk about the Court's strength in Brown, without acknowledge its impotence in Cooper.
They have serious flaws, many of which are on display this week. But we are still better off with them than without them.
Slaughter-House Cases, Bradwell v. Illinois, and U.S. v. Cruikshank
"Who could possibly fathom that this would be America in 2020?"
The results of facial recognition software might not be admissible evidence—but the police are allowed to use them to generate admissible evidence.
"Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights" -- why the "but"?
A recent study finds broad support for the idea in many countries, including the US.
She didn't definitively tip her hand. But her statements reinforce my view that she is likely to rule the residual individual mandate unconstitutional, but also that it is severable from the rest of the law.
Would regular SCOTUS confirmations produce too much volatility in the case law? I am unconvinced.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights wants Down Syndrome individuals to have to compete with everyone else for jobs.
The North American Butterfly Association will get the chance to press its Fifth Amendment claims against the Department of Homeland Security.
"Why should I say someone else should do the difficulty if the difficulty is the only reason to say no."
The Court adds an important Appointments Clause case to the docket.
Petitions for certiorari in the other two Emoluments Clause cases remain pending.
He seems open to materially increasing Internet service and content providers' liability for libels posted by their users, and based on other user misconduct.
A good illustration of the modern rule, which allows some permanent injunctions against repeating specific statements found to be libelous at trial—but only after such a finding on the merits.
In a constitutional case, should a justice ever stand by a clearly erroneous precedent?
She's unlikely to cast a vote to strike down the law as a whole, and unlikely to have a decisive impact on its fate even if she does.
Statues of Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are the latest victims of rioters in Portland.
The divided 2-1 decision is the first court of appeals ruling to rule on the legality of a key part of the funding diversion effort.
Biden: "The only court packing is going on right now -- it's going on with Republicans packing the court now. It's not constitutional."
The court applied the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was enacted in 1993 by a nearly unanimous Congress.
A marathon oral argument on EPA's attempts at climate policy.
Bret Stephens, in what may be his last NYT column, tracks the foundational rewriting of the 1619 Project.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10