On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to consider Hedges v. Obama, a constitutional claim challenging a law that could enable theindefinite military detention of US citizens—within the US—without trial, charge, or evidence of crime. The decision is remarkable, both for its implications for fundamental rights, and its reflection on judicial independence.Details
After the Firearms Freedom Act Ruling, some activists are packing their bags. But there’s a lesson from others who have successfully defied the courts.Details
At first glance at the Constitution’s text, it would appear not. There is no general Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution applying to the federalgovernment—although there are a lot of clauses requiring equal treatment in specific situations. The Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment is general in nature, but it applies explicitly only to stategovernments.Details
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fisher v. University of Texas has made it tougher for state universities to run their ethnic spoils systems. But not tough enough.
First, the background:
The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to extend “equal protection of the laws” to their citizens. The primary goal of the Equal Protection Clause was to stop states from discriminating against racial and ethnic groups. But the actual wording of the Clause covers more than just racial and ethnic discrimination.Details
the Founders expected the courts to void laws they found unconstitutional.Details
One of the most enduring myths in American constitutional history is that Chief Justice John Marshall was a judicial activist whose decisions are good precedent for the modern federal monster state.Details