Justice Gorsuch Wants To Hear More (Takings) Cases
Justice Gorsuch shows more interest in property rights challenges than his colleagues on the Court.
Justice Gorsuch shows more interest in property rights challenges than his colleagues on the Court.
Fewer laws and less government would be a better solution to judicial warfare.
In a new book, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch describes the "human toll" of proliferating criminal penalties.
When those on parole or probation are included, one out of every 47 adults is under “some form of correctional supervision.”
His criticism of President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court reform is hard to take seriously.
Contrary to progressive criticism, curtailing bureaucratic power is not about protecting "the wealthy and powerful."
Plus: A disappointing first round of "Baby YIMBY" grant awards, President Joe Biden endorses rent control, and House Republicans propose cutting housing spending.
Her concurrence is a reminder that the application of criminal law should not be infected by personal animus toward any given defendant.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way.
There is a great deal of panic surrounding the "extreme" nature of the current Court. But that is often not based in reality.
Paul Erlinger was sentenced to 15 years in prison based largely on a determination made by a judge—not a jury.
"The opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion.
Justice Gorsuch has never voted against Native American interests in a Supreme Court case. But that probably isn't because he's biased in favor of Indians. He simply believes that much existing precedent in this field is biased the other way.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch highlights a vital lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic.
"Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country," Gorsuch wrote. That might be an exaggeration, but it isn't far off.
The Supreme Court issues five merits opinions, but there are still forty more waiting.
Plus: A look back at Rochelle Walensky's tenure as head of the CDC
Today's opinions are a requel to prior splits among the most recent Republican appointees to the Supreme Court.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, Donald Trump thinks harsh criticism of the president should be actionable.
The Bank Secrecy Act divides the justices in an unusual way, and Justice Barrett authors her fourth opinion in an argued case.
Why isn’t affirmative action in college admissions prohibited under the Civil Rights Act?
While other pandemic policies have ended, the migration measure has “outlived [its] shelf life,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote yesterday.
The link between Bostock v. Clayton County and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
The Insular Cases “rest on a rotten foundation,” Gorsuch wrote.
Unsatisfied by the outcome of one case, the feds secured a much more severe penalty the second time around.
In a forceful concurring opinion, he argues the Supreme Court should overrule longstanding precedents denying many constitutional rights to residents of Puerto Rico and other "unincorporated" US territories. Gorsuch is absolutely right. But he would do well to cast the same critical gaze on the very similar precedents that exempt immigration restrictions from normal constitutional scrutiny.
Things are far from completely clear. But Justice Gorsuch's opinion may give preenforcement challenges to SB 8 and other similar laws a good deal more wiggle room than many think.
Can a cop enter a suspect's home without a warrant if they're in pursuit and have probable cause to believe the suspect has committed a misdemeanor?
"The application of physical force to the body with the intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the person does not submit and is not subdued."
The justices emphasized that K-12 schools are currently scheduled to reopen after winter break.
In an op ed coauthored with former Colorado state supreme court justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, he outlines some ways to make legal services more affordable for the poor and lower middle class.
Two centuries of precedents say the president is not immune from judicial process.
"Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
Trump's first Supreme Court pick is better on civil liberties than his critics want to admit.
The conservative justice comes out swinging on behalf of the non-delegation doctrine.
The Trump appointee is not impressed by the logic of the "dual sovereignty" doctrine: "Really?"
A recent dissenting opinion by Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch highlights some of the dangers of the enormous scope of modern criminal law.
The Trump appointee warns that "little would be left of our First Amendment liberties" if cops could punish people who irk them by finding a legal reason to bust them.
What’s worse for the left, a conservative originalist or a conservative living constitutionalist?
It's not the first time the two justices have teamed up on a criminal justice case.
A case to watch for both criminal justice reformers and for critics of executive overreach.
Progressives appreciate the separation of powers-up to a point.
Of course, Gorsuch had his share of clashes with the liberal bloc too.
Yearning for the days when interrupting your debate opponent was considered the height of incivility.
Contrary to what his critics say, this "narrow-minded elitist" stands up for the little guy.
In a case involving cellphone location data, Gorsuch says entrusting information to someone does not mean surrendering your Fourth Amendment rights.
Capsule summary: "Vote the way we want you to, and maybe we'll have just a bit less contempt for you than we now do."
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees asks SCOTUS to end mandatory public-sector union fees.
(You don't really have to shut up, but here's my money.)
Yes, I'll donate to Reason right now! I'll keep my money today, thanksReason 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 thanksHelp 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 thanksReason is the antidote to the same old stale take on ideas that actually matter to me.
I’ll support Free Minds and Free Markets! Not interestedReason pushes me to think critically with facts and analysis that shape my perspective and amplify the ideas I care about.
I want to make a donation so that my voice can be heard! Not todayEvery 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 interestedIt’s hard to trust the media these days, especially when everyone is pushing a partisan agenda. Reason stands for my right to make my own choices.
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No, I’ll follow the partisan herdReason’s fearless, principled journalism keeps me sane in a crazy world.
Making a donation to Reason right now will keep me from losing my mind! No, I like being madSo 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 thanksSupport the voices that advocate for your freedom. Donate to Reason today!
Yes, I want to make a difference for Free Minds and Free Markets! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today