Nelson Lund

Nov 7, 2024 | lawliberty.org | Nelson Lund |Robert G. Natelson |Paul Schwennesen |Daniel Pitt

In his recent forum essay on nullification, Mark Pulliam distinguished between true nullification laws—those in which a state claims that it can refuse to obey federal laws that the state deems to be contrary to the Constitution—and laws that are merely statements of disagreement or vows of non-cooperation. This is an important distinction because the states are under no constitutional obligation to endorse federal laws or to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing them.

Jul 2, 2024 | lawliberty.org | Nelson Lund |Richard Samuelson |Reuven Brenner |Helen Dale

When eight members of our disputatious Supreme Court join an opinion on a controversial topic like the Second Amendment, it’s safe to expect a narrow decision. Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion in United States v. Rahimi is indeed narrowly drawn, and this consensus will encourage proponents of strong gun rights to applaud the Court’s restraint.

Apr 9, 2024 | iverifyu.com | Nelson Lund

The Supreme Court reputedly has a long-awaited conservative majority committed to enforcing the meaning of the Constitution as it was understood when it was adopted. This commitment to originalist interpretation will soon be tested in two cases now before the court that have what lawyers call bad optics. One case, United States v.

Apr 9, 2024 | nytimes.com | Nelson Lund

The Supreme Court reputedly has a long-awaited conservative majority committed to enforcing the meaning of the Constitution as it was understood when it was adopted. This commitment to originalist interpretation will soon be tested in two cases now before the court that have what lawyers call "bad optics."One case, United States v.

Nov 1, 2023 | lawliberty.org | Nelson Lund |Dave Barfield |Elizabeth Amato |Juliana Geran Pilon

November 1, 2023 United States v. Rahimi tests the weak points of the history-and-tradition rule laid down in Bruen. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court acknowledged for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, not a right of state governments to maintain militia organizations.