New on Lawfare: The Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act Would Criminalize Politics
Seth Barrett Tillman and I consider the constitutionality of this new bribery regime.
Seth Barrett Tillman and I consider the constitutionality of this new bribery regime.
Arrange students in "virtual auditorium," live captions, and class is automatically transcribed.
Unconstitutional, says a Massachusetts appellate court (correctly).
"CBP asks the Court to close the stable door to keep an invisible horse from bolting. But that stable door sat open for five months before CBP asked the Court to secure it. Neither the Court nor CBP know whether the horse is gone, but the possibility that it's still be there can't outweigh public's interest in open doors."
would clearly violate the Constitution, and so would giving a ticket to your lover because of the romantic relationship.
The First Amendment protects "'anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, [and] antisemitic" speech, the court correctly observes.
Economist Robert Litan makes a strong case that this step is likely to save both lives and money.
My cynical take on the first week back.
threatens to kick students out of class for "othering." Fortunately, the university has stepped in and rejected this position.
The Court has said almost nothing interesting about the Contract Clause this millennium, and in 2018 it continued to apply the Clause loosely.
The symposium includes contributions by Adam Thierer, Mikayla Novak, Max Borders, and myself. The relationship between exit and voice is as important an issue as ever.
mentioning the name of an officer against whom publicly available complaints -- the contents of which matches the contents of the allegedly libelous post -- were filed.
The President of the University will post a public list of signatories. Nonsignatories may be subject to retaliation.
This issue keeps popping up in litigation against the Trump Administration. The Supreme Court should resolve this question.
Students can never again complain about word limits.
Government snipers, objector blackmail, and PACER fees.
Will the Great Chief Justice be given the Roger Taney Treatment?
The full Court will consider whether Jeffrey Epstein's victims can argue for invalidating the immunity provisions in the Epstein deal.
And panel agrees with Justice Kavanaugh that "five Members of the Court reject[ed] the Whole Woman’s Health cost-benefit standard."
At the same time, the court punts on whether the House has standing to challenge allegedly unlawful expenditure by Executive Branch.
Professor Bruce Hay sued an LLC in diversity jurisdiction, but failed to note the citizenship of each member of the LLC.
The legally strange dimension: A claim that the magazine article author sexually harassed the subject of her article, apparently by "seek[ing] inappropriate personal and romantic intimacy with Plaintiff."
"[T]he Court has little difficulty concluding that Hughes's dual goals in bringing her baseless suit were to inflict financial harm on Benjamin and to raise her own profile in the process."
The Hamilton-Lincoln Law Institute files suit in EDPA on behalf of a FIRE attorney who speaks at CLE events on "hot-button legal issues."
Its approval rating - 58 percent - is at its highest level since 2009, far outstripping the other two branches of government. That doesn't prove the justices are doing a good job, but will make it harder to pursue court-packing or other attacks on the Court.
Evangelicals find a way to pray en masse in Nevada.
A new report from the writer's group PEN America.
A blistering criticism, but I'm not sure this was the right case for it.
A new poll reports on attitudes on this subject, broken down by race.
Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion may have promoted textualism, but it did not recognize a departure from Stare Decisis.
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