From "Deference" to "Respect"—The Real Import of Loper Bright
The decision to overturn Chevron removes an agency trump card, but does not instruct courts to ignore agency opinions--and they won't.
The decision to overturn Chevron removes an agency trump card, but does not instruct courts to ignore agency opinions--and they won't.
The 5th Circuit ruled that the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it rejected applications from manufacturers of flavored nicotine e-liquids.
There is no textual basis for "immunity" as such, but there are structural reasons why some degree of insulation is inevitable.
A thoughtful, sober take on Trump v. United States.
And the Supreme Court agrees to weigh in.
Contrary to progressive criticism, curtailing bureaucratic power is not about protecting "the wealthy and powerful."
The doctrine makes it nearly impossible for victims of prosecutorial misconduct to get recourse.
Even as he praises judicial decisions that made room for "dissenters" and protected "robust political debate," Tim Wu pushes sweeping rationales for censorship.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson says these cases will "devastate" the regulatory state. Good.
“Immigration is an area of the law where the partisan alignments break down over Chevron.”
Plus: A disappointing first round of "Baby YIMBY" grant awards, President Joe Biden endorses rent control, and House Republicans propose cutting housing spending.
Plus: Trump immunity ruling, cosmopolitan thinking on immigration, cringe Kamala, and more...
By requiring "absolute" immunity for some "official acts" and "presumptive" immunity for others, the justices cast doubt on the viability of Donald Trump's election interference prosecution.
The Court is remanding these two cases for more analysis—but it made its views on some key issues clear.
Her concurrence is a reminder that the application of criminal law should not be infected by personal animus toward any given defendant.
The decision also negates two counts of the federal indictment accusing Donald Trump of illegally interfering in the 2020 presidential election.
Homeless advocates say the court's decision in Grants Pass v. Johnson gives local governments a blank check to "to arrest or fine those with no choice but to sleep outdoors."
The Court says Chevron deference allows bureaucrats to usurp a judicial function, creating "an eternal fog of uncertainty" about what the law allows or requires.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy "a power grab." She's right, but in the wrong way.
In a 5-4 decision, the male justices side with the state and industry challengers and the female justices side with the Environmental Protection Agency
The majority and the dissenters agree that the drug was "central" to "the opioid crisis," even though there is little evidence to support that thesis.
The decision rejects a system in which the agency imposes civil penalties after investigating people and validating its own allegations.
The decision reverses the Court's previous stay of a lower court decision blocking part of the law.
Although the FBI never produced evidence that Ali Hemani was a threat to national security, it seems determined to imprison him by any means necessary.
The verdict in Murthy v. Missouri is a big, flashing green light that jawboning may resume.
Even if one thinks the federal government crossed the line in pushing more aggressive social-media-platform content moderation policies, plaintiffs must still satisfy the traditional requirements of Article III standing.
Murthy v. Missouri challenges government efforts to suppress dissenting viewpoints on social media.
Although critics say the Court’s current approach is unworkable, it has been undeniably effective at defeating constitutionally dubious gun regulations.
There is a great deal of panic surrounding the "extreme" nature of the current Court. But that is often not based in reality.
The Court's grant of certiorari is limited to only one of the issues in this litigation.
Two years after the Dobbs decision, Americans are increasingly concerned with how abortion bans affect women with wanted pregnancies.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion includes significant errors, and violates some of her own precepts against excessive reliance on questionable history.
Paul Erlinger was sentenced to 15 years in prison based largely on a determination made by a judge—not a jury.
The Court says "a credible threat" justifies a ban on gun possession but does not address situations where there is no such judicial finding.
The justices are rushing to close out the term before the end of June.
The justices ruled that "objective evidence" of retaliation does not require "very specific comparator evidence."
Chevron deference, a doctrine created by the Court in 1984, gives federal agencies wide latitude in interpreting the meaning of various laws. But the justices may overturn that.
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.
Plus: A listener asks the editors about the Selective Service.
The justices still have over one-third of the term's cases remaining.
Six justices agreed that federal regulators had misconstrued the statutory definition of a machine gun.
The justice's benign comments set off a lengthy news cycle and have been treated as a scandal by some in the media. Why?
In his AHM v. FDA concurrence, Justice Thomas suggests the Court needs to rethink associational standing and questions whether it comports with Article III.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted during oral arguments, the right to sell a shirt is different from the right to be the only one who can sell that shirt.
A "desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the Court's opinion.
Not a single justice was impressed by the unimpressive standing theories offered in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA.
The "most pro-life president in American history" cannot please hardline activists without alienating voters.