Below is my column in USA Today on the alliance of civil libertarians and gun rights groups to oppose New York’s attack on free speech rights in the name of gun control.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Gunning for Free Speech: Civil Libertarians and Gun Right Advocates Join to Oppose New York’s Attack on Free Speech”
Below is my column in The Messenger on the challenge facing the Supreme Court in the coming week over the electoral disqualification of former president Donald Trump in Colorado and Maine. The appeal in Maine has been filed and can now work its way up to the Court. Colorado is expected to file with the Court this week. If the Court does not act before Jan. 4th, Colorado could seek to moot any appeal and avoid review. It would then depend on the Maine litigation to bring the matter back to the Court.
Here is the column: Continue reading ““A Sad Day”: How the Colorado Disqualification Case is Bringing Back Bad Memories for the Supreme Court”
Rep. Jamie Raskin raised eyebrows on Sunday with a CNN interview where he said that there may have to be action taken if Justice Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself from pending appeals over the disqualification of Donald Trump from the Colorado and Maine ballots. Not only is there a weak basis for demanding such recusal, the suggestion of some type of response or retaliation raises ongoing concerns over efforts to influence or intimidate justices. Continue reading ““What Do We Do if He Doesn’t Recuse Himself?” Rep. Raskin Raises Eyebrows with CNN Interview on Justice Thomas”
Below is my column in The Messenger on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the motion by Special Counsel Jack Smith to curtail the appellate review of Donald Trump’s claim of immunity. While denounced by many in the media, it was not just a predictable but principled decision to stick with regular order in the consideration of such appellate issues. For too many legal experts, Trump offers the release of rage and the ability to adopt of the same dismissive, cavalier attitude of others when it comes to legal rights.
Long civil libertarians can experience the momentary freedom from the confines of blind justice and due process. They can just vent and demand abridged appeals for a presumed guilty defendant. They can embrace broad interpretations of criminal provisions and narrow interpretations of constitutional rights. Years of circumscribed restraint can be set aside for a cathartic demand for disqualification and incarceration. The Supreme Court, however, resisted such demands in a decision that declined to create a fast-track to favor the Special Counsel.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Supreme Court Holds to Regular Order for the New Year”
Below is my column in The Messenger on the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision disqualifying former President Donald Trump from the 2024 election. There are now over a dozen states considering similar demands from advocates to prevent voters from being able to vote for the current leading candidate for the presidency. In California, Lieutenant Gov. Eleni Kounalakis publicly called upon the Secretary of State to “explore every legal option” to follow the same path as Colorado. It is a temptation that is irresistible for Democratic politicians in a race to the bottom of our rage politics.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Yielding to Temptation: Colorado’s Supreme Court Blocks Democracy to Bar Trump on the 2024 Ballot”
Below is my column in the New York Post on the next step in the effort to disqualify former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election. I believe that the Colorado opinion will be set aside, but it is not finality but clarity that we need from the United States Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
Colorado Judge Sarah Wallace has become the latest jurist to reject the effort to bar former president Donald Trump from the ballot under the novel 14th Amendment theory. I have long been a vocal critic of the theory, which I view as historically and legally unfounded. I also view it as arguably the most dangerous theory to arise in decades. While Wallace reached the right conclusion, she committed, in my view, fundamental errors in her analysis on the free speech elements of the case. Continue reading “Colorado Judge Rejects 14th Amendment Disqualification Effort to Bar Trump from Ballot”
I am pleased to announce that my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in the Age of Rage, is now available for purchase. The book and is now available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other sites for pre-orders. Indeed, there are discounts for Kindle copies for pre-orders. Simon & Schuster will release the book in June 2024, but it can be purchased now. Continue reading “THE INDISPENSABLE BOOK: THE TURLEY BOOK IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR PRE-ORDER!”
Today I have the honor of speaking to the judges and lawyers in the 2023 Ohio Judicial conference on the Supreme Court in Columbus, Ohio. I will be discussing the last year of cases and controversies for the Court, incluiding recent and upcoming decisions. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said that “it’s hard not to have a big year at the Supreme Court.” However, this is shaping up as another huge year for the Court. Continue reading “Turley Speaks at 2023 Ohio Judicial Conference”
We previously discussed how Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson included a false claim to support her dissent in the Court’s recent opinion barring racial discrimination in college admissions. Now, the justice is accused of a second false claim derived from the same source: the amicus brief of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). Notably, however, the media is still citing the first error as proof that race-blind admissions will kill Black citizens. Continue reading “Justice Jackson Accused of Second False Claim in Affirmative Action Dissent”
In July 1991, Clarence Thomas, a relatively unknown D.C. Circuit judge, was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to replace Thurgood Marshall on the United States Supreme Court. Thomas soon found out that the only thing more perilous than replacing a historical icon on the Court is replacing a liberal with a conservative. Thomas would become an icon in his own right for conservatives: an unyielding defender of textualism and conservative jurisprudence. Yet, liberals seem more preoccupied by his race than his rigidity. This week, a leading Democrat, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison unleashed another openly racist attack on Thomas and neither the media nor the political establishment condemned the remarks.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has delivered a body blow to free speech as well as academic freedom in a ruling against a statistics professor at North Carolina State University. Professor Stephen Porter objected to what he considered the lower standards used by his school to hire minority faculty. The school declared such views as insufficiently “collegial” and retaliated against him. Now a divided panel has ruled that such views are not protected by the First Amendment — potentially opening up even greater retaliation against conservative, libertarian, and dissenting faculty. Rather than punish them for failing to echo the views of the schools, they can now be fired for their lack of collegiality in speaking against such policies and hires. Continue reading “Fourth Circuit Rules Against North Carolina State Professor Who Spoke Out Against Diversity Policies”
The last week’s historic decisions from the Supreme Court led to an array of factual objections from critics. In Justice Neil Gorsuch’s major free speech ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a man who believes that he is “Stewart” referenced in the case (as asking for a website for a same sex marriage) never made such a contact with the company. In Justice Sotomayor’s dissent to that case, the justice falsely claims that the Pulse mass shooting (“the second-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history”) was an intended anti-LGBT attack. (The shooter apparently was unaware of what type of nightclub it was). Those mistakes, however, had little impact on the reasoning. That is not the case with a mathematical challenge raised to the dissent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in the North Carolina affirmative action case. Continue reading “Crunching the Numbers: Does Justice Jackson’s Dissent on Affirmative Action Add Up?”
There is an interesting debate unfolding around the country in the aftermath of the Supreme Court barring the use of race in college admissions. For decades, colleges and universities have sought to downplay the weight given to race in court while insisting that it was one of a number of factors used in maintaining diversity. Now, however, schools are insisting that, without considering race, minority admissions will plummet. Continue reading “The Affirmative Aftermath: Schools Now Insist that Race had a Major Impact in Admissions”
Below is my column in the Hill on the ruling this week in Moore v. Harper — and the coup that never happened. After months of dire predictions of a coup in the making, the Court overwhelmingly rejected the underlying “independent state legislature,” as some of us predicted. There was little discussion of the prior hysteria or attacks on the integrity of the conservative justices. Political and media pundits will simply move on to the next jump scare item on the docket.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “The Coup that Never Was: The Supreme Court Rebuffs “Power Grab” Theory”