Caught between lofty ideals and geopolitical realities, the International Criminal Court faces a stark dilemma: pursue justice at the risk of isolation and irrelevance or adapt to a world where power trumps principle. Can the Court embrace Realpolitik without abdicating its responsibilities?
Read More
Chevron is dead. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Roberts Court offers a victory for constitutional purists and a warning to the administrative state: no longer will the judiciary abdicate its Article III powers, and no more can statutory ambiguities offer regulators carte blanche. But amidst this tectonic shift in administrative law, the balance between efficient governance and judicial oversight hangs in precarious uncertainty, shaken by the Court’s coup de grâce.
Read More
In Murthy v. Missouri, incautious Supreme Court decisions could either weaken the sanctity of free speech rights or unduly limit government power to defend the public interest online. As states and individuals dispute the nature of alleged censorship-by-proxy from the federal government, the Court must preserve the fragile vitality of the First Amendment while acknowledging the obvious necessities of governance in the digital age.
Read More
Recent Supreme Court decisions in two sister cases, Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliffe v. Garnier, established much-needed precedent in a cloudy, foreign, and heretofore little-navigated area of the law: free speech on social media. Unifying a plethora of contending legal tests and disparate rulings, the future of free speech for millions of federal employees is now clearer than ever.
Read More