Last Thursday, the Cato Institute held an event foreshadowing the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. City of New London decision and celebrating the release of Ilya Somin’s new book, The Grasping Hand: “Kelo v. City of New London” & the Limits of Eminent Domain. There was an impressive cast of presenters with welcoming remarks by Richard Epstein, keynote delivered by Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY) and panelists which included attorneys that represented both sides in oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

The time is near: later this month the Supreme Court will issue its ruling on King v. Burwell. The case centers around the question of what the phrase “established by the state” means, and how it affects eligibility for subsidies.

Using civil asset forfeiture, the government often seizes the property of completely innocent individuals. However, despite their innocence, these individuals often settle with the government and forfeit a portion of their property to government authorities. Why do they do this?

Many Americans are eagerly (and nervously) awaiting the King v. Burwell decision, which is expected to come at the end of the month. The court case will determine whether ObamaCare, which looks to be falling apart independently of legal intervention, is illegally providing subsidies to those enrolled in the exchange.

Last Friday, the DC Chapter of the Federalist Society hosted an event with guest Mark Brnovich, Attorney General of Arizona. A state’s AG office plays an important role in fighting federal overreach. Besides prosecuting criminal cases and defending state action, many AGs, at least the good ones, also sue the federal government.

On June 2nd, the House of Representatives Committee on oversight and Government Reform began a hearing on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The hearing spanned two days and was aided by three panels of witnesses. In effort to ensure transparency, the congressmen assessed how government agencies currently view FOIA and deal with requests for information. My takeaway? FOIA is a joke and government agencies are the worst.

Much of the Bill of Rights is dedicated to protecting accused persons, an action integral to our society. Expanding upon the Sixth Amendment’s granted right to legal counsel, states have put legislation in place that strictly dictates who can practice law. While such regulations aim to protect citizens, they have adverse effects and actually abridge the freedoms we hold dear.

Sometimes a court reaches a decision that is great on the policy side, but appears to lack a basis in the law. Last week, in Comptroller v. Wynne, the Supreme Court made such a decision, continuing its practice of reading a negative Commerce Clause into our Constitution.

Normally to sue in federal court, a plaintiff must establish standing. There are three requirements for establishing standing: (1) an injury in fact, (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and (3) the injury would be redressed by a favorable court ruling.

The Necessary and Proper Clause is often called the “Elastic Clause” because it is believed to give Congress “implied powers” that government is assumed to possess without being mentioned in the Constitution. There is a problem with this view: a government that is able to expand its power through an “Elastic Clause” is more likely to abuse its power.