Last week, I filed an amicus brief on behalf of petitions for certiorari in Chafee v. United States and Pleau v. United States. These related cases could be among the most important federalism cases before the Court this term. The amici are the Cato Institute and the Independence Institute. The State of Rhode Island and […]
Author Archive | David Kopel
Bleg on First Amendment offensive speech
I thought it would useful to compile a list of some of the most offensive words, images, etc. which have been held to be protected by the First Amendment. I’m especially interested in Supreme Court cases, but other cases are fine too. So commenters, please submit your nominations. Thanks!
Attorney General Holder grants BATFE expanded forfeiture powers
Details here, from Americans for Forfeiture Reform. In short, BATFE becomes another federal agency which gets to seize large sums of cash, based on presumption that a large sum of cash must be related to an illegal transaction in controlled substances. And notwithstanding the fact that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is […]
The Ruby Ridge murders, 20 years later
By David Kopel on August 22, 2012 11:48 pm in Criminal Law, Executive Branch, Growth of Government, Guns, Self-Defense, Targeted Killing, War on Drugs
The Prologue to my book No More Wacos: What’s Wrong with Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix it, includes a section on the Ruby Ridge case. Much more on Waco and Ruby Ridge is available on the Waco page on my website.
“Beer + Pizza = Success.” The key formula for law students.
During Constitutional Law I at Denver University last Spring, I diagrammed for the students one of the most important study tips for law students: “Beer + Pizza = Success”. No matter how relentlessly a student raises his hand during class, the maximum amount of speaking practice that can come from classroom participation is a few […]
Amicus brief in Woollard v. Gallagher, Maryland right to bear arms case
Earlier today, I filed an amicus brief in Woollard v. Gallagher, currently scheduled for an expedited hearing around October 23 before the Fourth Circuit. The case is an appeal from the decision of the federal district court that Maryland’s granting of handgun carry permits only to persons who can prove a specific, imminent threat is […]
What Judge Reinhardt missed
Eugene Volokh’s post below discusses a dissent by the Ninth Circuit’s Judge Reinhardt in a capital sentencing case. Judge Reinhardt accurately states that carrying a gun is a Second Amendment right, to make the broader point that carrying a gun is not, in itself, illegitimate behavior. Judge Reinhardt could have strengthened his opinion by citing […]
Arms Trade Treaty conference ends without agreement
By David Kopel on July 27, 2012 5:47 pm in Genocide, Global Governance/World Government, Guns, International Human Rights Law, International Law
The weeks-long conference at the United Nations to produce an Arms Trade Treaty is ending without the creation of a treaty. None of the draft treaties which have circulated in the past several days came remotely close to finding consensus support. The impossibility of achieving consensus involved a wide variety of issues and nations, far […]
Colorado Consensus on Gun Laws
In an article today for National Review Online, I detail how “Broadly supported post-Columbine reforms balance gun rights and gun control”: After the Columbine High School murders, Colorado enacted eight specific gun-law reforms. Three of these reforms are examples of what people usually call “gun control,” and five of them are in the “gun rights” […]
Don’t turn Aurora killer into celebrity
That’s the title of my article yesterday in USA Today, suggesting how the media can try to cover the crime in a way that does not increase the risk of a copycat effect. Also on USA Today, I participated in a Web Chat with a pair of representatives of the Brady Campaign, available here. A […]
The Bar Review version of NFIB v. Sebelius
By David Kopel on July 10, 2012 2:52 pm in Commerce Clause, Constitutional Law, Individual Mandate, Originalism, Supreme Court, Taxing and Spending Clause
Over at Scotusblog, I present the legal rules of NFIB v. Sebelius, as they might appear in a bar review outline, or in a student study aid for a Constitutional Law I class.
Chief Justice Roberts and the window tax
By David Kopel on July 9, 2012 2:27 pm in Constitutional History, Constitutional Law, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Originalism, Taxes, Taxing and Spending Clause
In NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts imagined a hypothetical federal tax on windows, in order to bolster his point that the Court should treat the individual mandate as a “tax,” even though the Obamacare statute calls it a “penalty.” Suppose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy […]
Next step: Repeal the individual mandate because it is unconstitutional
By David Kopel on June 29, 2012 7:30 pm in Congress, Constitutional History, Equal Protection, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Necessary and Proper, Politics, Popular Constitutionalism, Presidency, Separation of Powers, Supreme Court, Taxes, Taxing and Spending Clause, Uncategorized
McCulloch v. Maryland had a very good day at the Supreme Court yesterday, with NFIB relying on and applying McCulloch‘s rules for when an enactment violates the Necessary and Proper Clause. What happened after the McCulloch decision also shows the next steps in battle over the individual mandate, as I suggest in an essay this morning […]
Is the individual mandate a “tax” according to the original meaning?
By David Kopel on June 29, 2012 6:30 pm in Constitutional History, Constitutional Law, Individual Mandate, Originalism, Supreme Court, Taxing and Spending Clause
Absolutely not. Rob Natelson explains why in this 27 minute podcast from iVoices.org.
NFIB as Marbury
By David Kopel on June 29, 2012 6:25 pm in Constitutional History, Constitutional Law, Federalism, Individual Mandate, Politics, Spending Clause, Supreme Court, Taxing and Spending Clause, Unconstitutional Conditions
My article yesterday for Scotusblog discussed the tremendous importance of the Court’s 7-2 use of the non-coercion rule to limit Spending Clause violations of State sovereignty and independence. The rule has been around ever since Steward Machine Company v. Davis (1937), but NFIB v. Sebelius is the first decision by any federal court to find that […]