Jonathan H. Adler

Forty years ago, perhaps unwittingly, the Supreme Court instructed lower courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. In the years since, lower courts heeded this instruction perhaps all too well, leading to concerns courts were abdicating their responsibility to interpret laws and facilitating agency aggrandizement. Last week, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court said enough was enough. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a six-justice majority, put an end to so-called Chevron deference.

Activists and politicians look for almost any excuse to claim that judges should withdraw from cases. Their calls for recusal may be frivolous, but it gives them an opportunity to criticize judges they don't like.

Yesterday, in Hobby Distillers Association v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau , a federal district court in Texas held that federal laws

John McInnis on Justice Amy Coney Barrett

A critique of standing doctrine I n the wake of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturning Roe v.

A three-judge panel concludes the rule's challenger are likely to succeed on the merits.

The justices are hearing future cases, but that has not sped up their work. The Supreme Court hears fewer cases than it used to, and justices write more separate opinions.

The Dispatch reports that congressional Democrats are making plans to "reform" the Supreme Court and counteract recent abortion and voting…

In the same week that Jack Smith refiles his Trump Indictment, Justice Jackson talks about the SCOTUS decision that made refiling necessary.

Newly released documents suggest a prominent account of Till's death left out some important information.