The Trial Court "Did Not Consider American Law and Fundamental Precepts of Due Process"
The Appellate Court of Illinois reverses a trial court decision that deferred to a Muslim divorce from India.
The Appellate Court of Illinois reverses a trial court decision that deferred to a Muslim divorce from India.
Fourteen years after the notorious Kelo case, the state where the case originated still has one of the nation's weakest eminent domain reform laws. A bill currently before the state legislature could change that.
Seems like a pretty clear First Amendment violation, even if the name is viewed as an offensive reference to illegal aliens (which the corporate owners apparently don't intend).
My latest article on "original-law originalism" with Steve Sachs
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on state separation of powers principles?
A markedly interesting case from the Sixth Circuit.
An interesting development, in a country that (like others in Eastern Europe) has had a long history of anti-Semitism.
Like Warren, I'm a fan of the Dragon Queen. But Warren overstates the character's virtues and minimizes her flaws - sometimes in ways that reveal shortcomings of Warren's own worldview.
A relatively novel suggestion, aimed at providing libel defendants with the necessary First Amendment protections while still giving libel plaintiffs protection early in the litigation process.
That's the legal theory behind a case just filed by prosecutors in Ohio.
to any decision that favors freedom against authority, even against representative government. The student of the Constitution requires something more ...."
Halfway originalism, frustrated immigration enforcement, and sit down or be put down.
"... and renews this court's faith in conscientious billing practices."
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
The ruling, written by a Republican-appointed judge, is an important victory for federalism.
The symposium includes contributions by a variety of legal commentators, including fellow VC blogger Keith Whittington and myself.
Should the availability of anti-libel injunctions turn on the subject matter of the false and defamatory speech that's being enjoined?
This actually came up in a hypo, based on a real extortion case.
A Pennsylvania court decision said they can (though relying on cases generally allowing restrictions on Public Trial Clause and First Amendment trial access rights in the interest of preventing embarrassment to witnesses).
George H.W. Bush appointee denounces second-class citizenship, cites to my work with Cassandra Robertson
The speech had been cosponsored by three faculty-run programs at the College.
Harvard Kennedy School Prof. Christopher Robichaud interviews me on this topic for his "This Week in Dystopia" podcast series.
Apparently, that's so of qualified privileges and of the All Writs Act -- but what on earth does that mean?
This is the key proposal from my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions -- a way of taming the anti-libel injunction to include important First Amendment procedural protections, but still allow its use to prevent genuine libels.
The answer is no, despite conservatives' claims to the contrary. But that does not entirely resolve questions about the wisdom of the policy.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
The Trump Administration is attempting a welcome redefinition of "waters of the United States"
The decision is likely to be unpopular. But it is the right thing to do nonetheless, as the law is unconstitutional. Not every evil must be addressed by a federal law.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
Just click on the little fuchsia speech-balloon at the end of the post, on the right hand side.
The East St. Louis Housing Authority stipulates to allowing residents to possess guns.
Cherry regulation, landfill corruption, and taking some air.
The Supreme Court's efforts to shift procedures in death penalty litigation.
The second edition of "Breaking Numbers Into Parts": very highly recommended.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
The imminent start of the final season of Game of Thrones is a good time to consider the series' political message, and reprise some of my work on that subject. Plus, a discussion of the political economy portrayed in George R.R. Martin's recently published prequel to the series.
Please share it widely!
I thought I'd serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions; here is the section on criminal libel law -- the article argues that anti-libel injunctions are like mini-criminal-libel laws.
My new article, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review late this year -- I'd love to get feedback, while there's still plenty of time to edit it.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! 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 thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
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