Libertarian paternalism hopes to preserve freedom of contract by relying on default rules rather than mandates. In practice, however, its approach is deeply flawed.

When it comes to free speech, Yale acts as an institutional arbiter that offers some groups special protection and leaves others to fend for themselves.

The only way to spur growth is to undo the structural barriers to gains from trade by pruning the law books of taxes and regulations that block these transactions.

The showdown between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will spur many thoughtful people to rethink the structure of America’s basic political institutions.

This case shows just how difficult it has become to protect religious liberty from overweening state power.

The Pope’s broad pronouncements offer no sign that he is aware of the related question of institutional design.

Nothing in the Kennedy opinion offers any assurance that the religious beliefs and practices of the shrinking religious minority who are opposed to same-sex marriage will be respected by the Supreme Court.

The critical political struggle of the 2016 presidential election may well be the redistribution of wealth. It may only deepen the current economic malaise.

In Baltimore, the government is confronted with a choice between two constituencies: unions and people in need.

The sorry religious liberty episode in Indiana shows how law often lurches from one extreme to the other.

The Hoover Institution’s Richard Epstein argues that critics of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act are undervaluing the right to free association.

The Supreme Court should scrap its unsound Equal Protection case law and return to simpler principles.

n the end, it is critical to understand that the current weaknesses in American foreign policy stem from the President’s adamant reluctance to commit to the use of American force.

The overheated DOJ report contributes to the inflamed atmosphere that led to the most recent shootings in Ferguson.

The hard question over King v. Burwell is whether it is the job of the Supreme Court to ratify the sins of a government agency.