The Arbitrary Ban on Gun Possession by Drug Users Invites Wildly Uneven Enforcement
Violators are rarely caught, while the unlucky few who face prosecution can go to prison for years.
Violators are rarely caught, while the unlucky few who face prosecution can go to prison for years.
The decision casts further doubt on the constitutionality of a federal law that makes it a felony for illegal drug users to own firearms.
Unlike calling Trump's stolen-election fantasy "the Big Lie," his lawyer's statements were demonstrably false assertions of fact.
Plus: A listener question concerning drug decriminalization and social well-being
The ruling draws back the veil on routine police practices that victimize innocent drivers.
Republicans who participated in the scheme say they relied on legal advice grounded in historical precedent.
The response to the decision illustrates the alarming erosion of bipartisan support for the First Amendment.
The decision highlights the injustice of a federal law that bans gun possession by broad categories of "prohibited persons."
A bill that would expand wine sales in the Empire State is meeting familiar resistance from entrenched interests.
The case could have long-term implications for how broadly fair use can be applied.
The state defied a Supreme Court ruling by banning guns from myriad "sensitive places."
U.S. District Judge Robert Payne concluded that 18-to-20-year-olds have the same Second Amendment rights as older adults.
It is not hard to see why the jury concluded that the incident she described probably happened.
Steven Hedrick rents out roll-off dumpsters to people and hauls them away after. A new city ordinance is mandating that people use county services instead.
Plus: Should committed libertarians be opposed to pro-natalist policies?
Critics argue that excessively strict pleading standards prevent plaintiffs with meritorious defamation claims from obtaining the evidence they need to support them.
Pretrial rulings recognized the falsity of the election-fraud claims that the outlet aired and rejected three of its defenses.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone was unimpressed by the Biden administration's argument that marijuana users are too "dangerous" to own guns.
The Biden administration is defending a federal law that disarms Americans based on "boilerplate language" in orders that judges routinely grant.
The 5th Circuit noted that such orders can be issued without any credible evidence of a threat to others.
The appeals court says regulators violated the Administrative Procedure Act when they tried to pull menthol vapes off the market.
Two New Jersey women who gave birth last fall suffered harrowing ordeals thanks to their breakfast choices.
Defending a categorical ban on gun possession by cannabis consumers, the Biden administration cites inapt "historical analogues."
The legal challenge to censorship by proxy highlights covert government manipulation of online speech.
Lawyers representing an allegedly duped Buffalo Wild Wings customer demand that the company disgorge its ill-gotten gains.
Even as the president bemoans the injustice of pot prohibition, his administration insists that cannabis consumers have no right to arms.
Criticism of public officials doesn't have to be polite, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court confirmed.
The president and his predecessor both tried to impose gun control by executive fiat.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, Donald Trump thinks harsh criticism of the president should be actionable.
Although the law did not change, regulators suddenly decided to criminalize unregistered possession of braced pistols.
One federal judge thought the state's new restrictions on medical advice were clear, while another saw a hopeless muddle.
U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb says the law is unconstitutionally vague.
Justice Department regulations threaten people with prosecution for failing to register even when their state no longer requires it.
A Supreme Court case illustrates the potential costs of making it easier to sue social media platforms over user-generated content.
By banning firearms from a wide range of "sensitive places," the state effectively nullified the right to bear arms.
Because of a misdemeanor welfare fraud conviction, Bryan Range is no longer allowed to own guns.
The decision defends the separation of powers and the rule of law against an attempt to prohibit firearm accessories by administrative fiat.
The court ruled that the state's six-week abortion ban violates the right to privacy.
The year’s highlights in buck passing feature petulant politicians, brazen bureaucrats, careless cops, loony lawyers, and junky journalists.
The agency is determined to ban the flavors that former smokers overwhelmingly prefer. For the children.
The appeals court says Donald Trump's status as a former president does not entitle him to special treatment.
While "the 26 words that created the internet" have been under fire from both sides, two groups argue that the 1996 law is essential to the future of abortion rights.
The state is threatening to punish doctors whose advice deviates from the "scientific consensus."
According to the former president's lawyers, his decision to retain the documents made them "personal."
According to the ruling, the Pima County Board of Supervisors violated the state constitution's Gift Clause with its sweetheart deal to a space tourism company.
In his dismissal order, the judge cited Section 230, the law protecting websites from liability for user-generated content.
The lack of statutory authority is the main issue raised by legal challenges to the plan.