In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the EPA was unreasonable when it did not consider costs when it decided to regulate mercury emissions from power plants. The Court, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, held that the EPA must consider costs, including compliance costs, when deciding whether a regulation is appropriate and necessary.

The newly handed-down Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act has garnered a great deal of debate. The 6-3 vote in favor of the administration does nothing to fix the unworkable flaws that remain and continue to largely define Obamacare. No matter the lens used to view the ACA, the prognosis is bad.

Some words apparently have no meaning, even when written in plain English, according to a majority of Supreme Court justices. Today the Court reached its long awaited decision in King v. Burwell. The Court ruled 6-3 for Burwell, holding that the federal subsidies can continue to flow to states that have not established an exchange.

The Fourth Amendment finds victory today in the Supreme Court case ruling of City of Los Angeles v. Patel. In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Court upheld a foundational principle of our constitution: Warrantless searches and seizures are unconstitutional.

Ten years after the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London, almost to the day, the Court, in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, protected property rights in an 8-1 decision. The Court held that the government must pay just compensation when taking personal property, just as it does when taking real property.

Today represents the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London. The Supreme Court issues decisions in around eighty cases each year. Some of those decisions, like Kelo, are closely contested 5-4 decisions. But Kelo has been unique because of the response that came from the public.

Ten years ago today, the United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the meaning and purpose of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which allows for the use of eminent domain for “public use,” such as a road. But in a 5 to 4 decision, the Court ruled that eminent domain could be used to take property from a private citizen for purposes other than a public use.

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?