The Manhattan Institute’s obsessive focus on trans medicine is a part of its broader effort to erode public trust in medical professionals and federal health authorities.
Trump’s recent attacks on the judiciary are best understood as an effort to lay the groundwork for a gradual shift in public opinion — to normalize the idea that defying court orders is not only acceptable but maybe even expected among his base.
Recent executive orders have targeted federal grant funding, trans students, non-citizen students, DEI efforts, and pro-Palestinian activism. Eight legal experts explain what these orders purport to require, analyze what they actually require, and assess how colleges and universities ought to respond.
According to recent judicial decisions, the state can criminalize homelessness, ban abortion, and restrict gender-affirming care, all in the name of public health, yet it cannot mandate vaccines nor pause evictions. How should we understand this asymmetry, and how might we realign public health jurisprudence with the pursuit of equality?
If endowments are fundamentally creatures of restriction, they are also in smaller measure creatures of interpretation and discretion. Universities should use what flexibility they do have to stand up for their programs, employees, and students – for the core constituents in a mission-driven environment – in this time of unprecedented assault.
By exploiting their monopolies and control over rate-setting processes, utility companies are shifting the costs of Big Tech’s voracious energy consumption onto an unwitting public.
A collection of our most illuminating posts on administrative law and democratic governance, featuring Sabeel Rahman, Karen Tani, Sophia Z. Lee, Kate Jackson, Daniel Walters, Blake Emerson, and more.
In mainstream American discourse, offshore financial centers are generally regarded as transnational dens of iniquity, where wealthy individuals conceal their assets and attempt to evade taxation. Yet in some post-colonial jurisdictions, offshore financial law has also played an important role in promoting economic independence.
What use is the rule of law in assessing the Trump administration’s assertions of executive power? To answer this question, we need to clarify our understanding of its value — and more specifically, how this value relates to democracy and constitutionalism.
Luke Herrine on writing down our dreams during a living nightmare, Allison Tait on the not-so-secret lives of trusts, and Ezra Rosser on how antipoverty advocates can go on the offensive. Plus, an upcoming event with Umut Özsu and Sam Moyn, a new paper by Brian Highsmith, Maya Sen, and Kathy Thelen, a new piece by Marshall Steinbaum about the longstanding Democratic reluctance to declare war on inequality, and an open letter to students of the Third Reconstruction.
In the embers of the Supreme Court’s disastrous Grants Pass decision, a new form of necessity doctrine offers a ray of light. If private property owners’ exclusionary rights are meaningfully threatened, might the political will for ending homelessness and food insecurity finally emerge?
The Trump coalition is no monolith. Daniel Martinez HoSang, Lindsay Owens, David Austin Walsh, Amanda Hollis-Brusky, Todd Tucker, and Dessie Zagorcheva reflect on the possibility of exploiting fissures on the right.
Trump’s executive order is not merely unconstitutional. It is an effort to perpetrate the very evils that abolitionists and Republicans sought to eradicate from our constitutional order.
If the recent past is no longer a useful guide to seeking change in the present, what good is policy-adjacent scholarship?
This past Friday, the Supreme Court granted cert in a case that concerns the first religious charter school in the United States. But this case is not merely about school choice or religious freedom — it also reflects a broader contest over how law structures public responsibility and private power.
