Why first principles suggest that Matthew Whitaker's acting appointment is invalid, but precedent and practice might suggest the opposite.
Living constitutionalists argue that their methodology allows us to improve constitutional law over time. But what if it actually makes it worse? Legal scholar Ernest Young raises that very question in an important new article.
Banning ballot selfies to stop voter fraud is like "burning down the house to roast the pig" said the First Circuit Court of Appeals. But many states still do it.
The federal case against the Pittsburgh shooter is redundant and constitutionally questionable.
Plus: Southern border will see more troops than Iraq, Syria.
Progressives appreciate the separation of powers—up to a point.
Responses to my lead essay by legal scholars John Eastman and Gabriel Chin have now been posted, along with my rejoinders to them.
Plus: The Justice Department goes after "net neutrality" in California and
SNL takes on Brett Kavanaugh.
The lead essay on this month's Cato Unbound is my article outlining why the text and original meaning of the Constitution do not give the the federal government any general power to restrict immigration. There will be responses by critics, and ongoing discussion until October.
Harris and other Democrats distorted Kavanaugh's comments on birth control to portray him as a religious extremist.
The Supreme Court needs to have the power to overturn "settled" constitutional decisions in order to prevent the permanent entrenchment of terrible precedents.
Parents of school shooting victims lash out over Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but the more troubling responses are from U.S. senators.
Legal scholars are often accused of claiming that the Constitution fits their political views. Here are several important issues where it doesn't fit mine.
Efforts on both right and left to make the democracy-promotion the key focus of constitutional law should be rejected.
The libertarian legal scholar explains the post-Bork landscape and what might derail Trump's high-court pick.
A new paper on an old way of resolving constitutional indeterminacies
Unlike the man who nominated him, Brett Kavanaugh understands the importance of an independent judiciary.
Like Neil Gorsuch, the D.C. Circuit judge has criticized
Chevron deference for encouraging executive arrogance.
The D.C. Circuit judge is a strong defender of the Second Amendment but seems less inclined to accept Fourth Amendment claims.
Contrary to what his critics say, this "narrow-minded elitist" stands up for the little guy.