New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rules that the Second Amendment is just as important as our other rights.
Brian Flores's lawsuit against the NFL has plenty of op-ed-style bombast, but fails to offer any proof of intentional racial discrimination.
Is it up to the executive branch by itself to create such statutes like DACA?
In Mahanoy, the Supreme Court struck a blow for free speech and bolstered the rights of parents.
The Equality Act would fundamentally change the history and practice of American rights.
Three cases have brought attention to the racial weighting used by the most elite universities.
Reparations arguments call for the kind of general racial classifications that have not been part of public law or finance since the Jim Crow era.
In Bostock, Gorsuch reaches the semi-mystical conclusion that any word or concept having to do with “sex” may constitute “sex discrimination."
In the twentieth century, the legislative powers of Congress became essentially unlimited. Is the Congressional subpoena power likewise unlimited?
Thuraissigiam threatens to make both the law and the facts in every petition for asylum—and there are thousands of them—a matter for the courts.
June Medical reminds us how far we are today from Marbury v. Madison’s holding that courts merely “say what the law is.”
There is no precedent for a measure like DACA, concretely debated and rejected by Congress, to have been, nonetheless, put into effect by the president.
Three cases that deal with a powerful federal law pervasive in its influence pose the opportunity to the Court for the takeover of legislative power.
In the wake of Department of Commerce v. New York, administrative law may now be permanently changed.
The logic of the Constitution demands that states are not amenable to suits by other states without their consent.
If the states can sue about their general “economies” and the general “health, safety, and well being” of their citizens, they can sue about anything.
We are fast abandoning the fundamental jurisprudence of our law that legislatures make general rules and courts apply them to specific circumstances.
Ironically, it was efforts to save the ACA that produced Judge O'Connor's conclusion that Obamacare could not stand.
Nothing surpasses the intellectual intoxication and will to power of a federal constitutional lawsuit—democracy be damned.
Harvard officials insist that the university does not engage in racial balancing, but their own admissions statistics prove otherwise.
Granting federal prosecutors the "discretion" to choose as a matter of policy what laws they favor and what laws they do not favor is just fine, right?
In yesterday's 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held compelling crisis pregnancy centers to promote abortion violates free speech.
If the Supreme Court were to accept the plaintiffs' logic in Trump v. Hawaii, the judicial branch will gain new powers over defense policy.
We should view Congressional Reapportionment as a political, not a judicial process.
Mueller has presented an indictment alleging that foreign nationals attempted to “undermine public confidence in democracy” by means of social media.
What does it mean “to defraud” the entire United States government or “any” of its agencies?
Such is the state of American law and of American society that the decision of a single Colorado baker not to make a cake for a customer because of his religious objection to what the cake was for will now go before the Supreme Court.
Since retiring as an assistant United States Attorney, Thomas R. Ascik has written about legal and constitutional issues at a variety of websites.