Few Supreme Court precedents have shaped American political speech more than New York Times v. Sullivan, the 1964 decision that made it much harder for public officials, and later public figures, to win defamation lawsuits. Supporters say that high bar protects free debate, especially criticism of powerful people. Critics say it’s become a legal bunker…
Jim Crow 2.0 or Hardball Politics?
Black Democrats are accusing Republicans of using redistricting to create “Jim Crow 2.0,” especially as GOP-led states move to redraw congressional maps in ways that could weaken or eliminate districts currently represented by Black Democrats. The immediate flashpoint is South Carolina, where Republicans are discussing a map that could threaten Rep. Jim Clyburn’s seat, the…
War, Power, and the Constitution: Who Actually Gets to Pull the Trigger?
On Friday, President Trump claimed that the War Powers Resolution is “totally unconstitutional.” That’s not exactly a mild critique. That’s the political equivalent of flipping the table and saying the rulebook itself is illegitimate. The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973 in the shadow of the Vietnam War, was Congress’s attempt to rein in a…
When “Protecting Voters” Becomes “Sorting by Race”
Yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court to strike down certain majority-minority congressional districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering has landed like a political thunderclap, though not exactly a surprising one. If you’ve been watching the Court’s trajectory on race-conscious policymaking, this feels less like a sudden detour and more like the next logical mile marker. Still,…
The Supreme Court, Geofence Warrants, and the Future of Privacy
The Supreme Court is weighing a case that could reshape how police investigate crimes in the digital age and, more importantly, how far the government can go in collecting data on ordinary people who aren’t suspected of doing anything wrong. At its core, the debate is about whether law enforcement should be allowed to use…
Back to the Firing Squad?
When the Department of Justice floats the idea of bringing back the firing squad, the immediate reaction from a lot of people is predictable: shock, discomfort, and a chorus of “this feels like a step backward.” But let’s be honest for a second. That reaction says more about how we’ve packaged capital punishment in recent…
Hungary’s Political Earthquake
Let’s not undersell this: Viktor Orbán losing an election to Péter Magyar is the kind of event that makes political analysts do a double take and then check the results again just to be sure. For over a decade, Orbán didn’t just win elections; he dominated them. He built a political brand around inevitability. The…
Birthright Citizenship: Constitutional Bedrock or Policy Loophole?
The latest legal battle over birthright citizenship—sparked by efforts tied to Trump and now before the Supreme Court—has reignited one of those debates that manages to feel both incredibly straightforward and maddeningly complex at the same time. At first glance, the issue seems almost too simple to argue about. The Fourteenth Amendment says what it…
The Line, the Law, and the Loophole: Should Asylum Seekers Be Turned Away?
When immigration policy hits the courtroom—especially the U.S. Supreme Court—you can be sure we’re dealing with more than just a technical dispute. We’re dealing with competing visions of law, sovereignty, and human obligation, all wrapped into one messy, politically radioactive package. At the center of this particular fight is “metering,” which is a practice where…
Spies, Security, and the Fourth Amendment: The Never-Ending Fight Over FISA Section 702
Every few years, Washington dusts off one of its most awkward debates: whether the federal government should continue using Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign targets. The argument has returned again, and like clockwork, it has managed to unite some very strange political bedfellows. Civil libertarians…