Warrantless breath tests are okay after drunken driving arrests — but warrantless blood tests are not; Thoughts on today’s Supreme Court immigration ruling; Equally divided Supreme Court affirms lower court decision on Obama immigration policies; Race-conscious university admissions policies survive Supreme Court review; Today’s unusual Supreme Court lineup; Federalist Society podcast on Brexit, devolution, and secession; Thoughts on the California amicus brief in Murr v. Wisconsin – an important takings case currently before the Supreme Court;
 
The Volokh Conspiracy
 
 
Warrantless breath tests are okay after drunken driving arrests — but warrantless blood tests are not
An important decision from the Supreme Court in Birchfield v. North Dakota.
Thoughts on today’s Supreme Court immigration ruling
Implications of today's equally divided Supreme Court ruling on immigration. The ruling is a setback for supporters of the president's policy. But they have a number of options going forward.
 
Equally divided Supreme Court affirms lower court decision on Obama immigration policies
With only eight justices, the Supreme Court was unable to resolve the dispute over the Obama administration's immigration reforms (and a dispute over Indian tribal court jurisdiction, too).
Race-conscious university admissions policies survive Supreme Court review
The Supreme Court, per Justice Anthony Kennedy, upholds the use of race in admissions by the University of Texas.
ADVERTISEMENT
 
Today’s unusual Supreme Court lineup
A decision concerning sentence enhancements under the Armed Career Criminal Act produces some odd bedfellows on the court.
Federal court opinion blocking California law that bans use of Assembly video
Good conclusions about copyright infringement (or lack thereof), strict scrutiny, commercial speech, and more.
Federalist Society podcast on Brexit, devolution, and secession
A podcast on Brexit, devolution and secession with Philp Booth of the Institute of Economic Affairs (a leading British think tank), and myself.
 
Thoughts on the California amicus brief in Murr v. Wisconsin – an important takings case currently before the Supreme Court
My critique of the state of California's amicus brief in an important Supreme Court property rights case. The CA brief responds to a brief I coauthored on behalf of the state of Nevada and eight other states.
ADVERTISEMENT
 
Recommended for you
 
Fact Checker
Count the pinocchios. A weekly review of what's true, false or in-between.
Sign Up »
 
     
 
©2016 The Washington Post, 1301 K St NW, Washington DC 20071