As I’ve noted, many jurisdictions have repealed their bans on stun guns. People v. Yanna (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) struck down one such ban on Second Amendment grounds, and in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court rejected some of Massachusetts’s arguments in favor of the stun gun ban. The court sent the case back to Massachusetts courts so that they could consider the other arguments, but prosecutors decided to just …

No matter how offensive some speech is, the power of government can’t be used to signal the virtuous views of the legislature.

State governments can compel public-sector workers to pay union fees as a condition of employment, even when those workers are not union members. The U.S. Supreme Court approved this practice in the 1977 case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, on the grounds that non-union “free riders” should still have to contribute something to the union’s treasury, since those non-members also benefit from the union’s collective bargaining activities. Needless to …

Teachers’ unions escaped a potentially devastating blow when the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked in the Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case last spring, which meant the lower court ruling stood and they could continue to charge fees to nonmembers.

Anti-union groups are making another major push in the U.S. Supreme Court to eliminate mandatory union dues, so-called “fair share” fees, for millions of public sector workers. This time, a full bench—if it takes the case—could end the deadlock that frustrated their efforts last year.

On May 23, 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. It was a terrible decision for worker freedom, and advocates for freedom have been trying to overturn it ever since.

Last year, California banned a painting of a Civil War battle from a county fair art show, because the painting included a Confederate battle flag. This was a misreading of California law (which, properly read, just limited what material the California government could itself sell and display), and the Center for Individual Rights sued on the artist’s behalf, arguing that this violated the First Amendment.

California’s ban on displaying the Confederate flag doesn’t apply to individuals even if they are on government property, state officials said this week in settling a free speech lawsuit.

The California Attorney General has ruled that a painting was wrongly banned at The Big Fresno Fair in 2016 for displaying the Confederate flag.

California prohibits its government agencies from selling or displaying the Confederate flag. But in a settlement of a lawsuit by an artist, who had to wait a year before his Civil War painting that included the Stars and Bars could be shown at a state-sponsored fair, the state has agreed that the ban doesn’t apply to private citizens on state property.