Published every September in celebration of Constitution Day, the Cato Supreme Court Review brings together leading legal scholars to analyze the most important cases of the Court's most recent term. It is the first scholarly review to appear after the term's end and the only on to critique the court from a Madisonian perspective.

Now in its 20th year, the Cato Supreme Court Review brings together leading legal scholars to analyze key cases from the Court's most recent term, plus cases coming up. Topics in the 2020-2021 edition include public disclosure of charitable donations (Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta), the off-campus speech (Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.), union access onto agribusiness land (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid), police acting as "community caretakers" and warrantless police entries (Caniglia v. Strom), and Arizona's new voting laws (Brnovich v. DNC).

Annotation. Now in its eighth year, this acclaimed annual publication brings together leading national scholars to analyze the Supreme Court's most important decisions from the term just ended and preview the year ahead.

Published every September, the Cato Supreme Court Review brings together leading legal scholars to analyze key cases from the Court's most recent term and to preview the year ahead. Now in its 15th year, it is the only journal to critique the Court from a Madisonian perspective, grounded in the nation's first principles: liberty and limited government. Cases covered in the 2016-2017 edition include: Salman v. United States Murr v. Wisconsin Expressions Hair Design Lee v. Tam Packingham SW General Trinity Lutheran Nelson v. Colorado

NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF 2021: POLITICS BY THE WALL STREET JOURNAL "A must-read for anyone interested in the Supreme Court."—MIKE LEE, Republican senator from Utah Politics have always intruded on Supreme Court appointments. But although the Framers would recognize the way justices are nominated and confirmed today, something is different. Why have appointments to the high court become one of the most explosive features of our system of government? As Ilya Shapiro makes clear in Supreme Disorder, this problem is part of a larger phenomenon. As government has grown, its laws reaching even further into our lives, the courts that interpret those laws have become enormously powerful. If we fight over each new appointment as though everything were at stake, it’s because it is. When decades of constitutional corruption have left us subject to an all-powerful tribunal, passions are sure to flare on the infrequent occasions when the political system has an opportunity to shape it. And so we find the process of judicial appointments verging on dysfunction. Shapiro weighs the many proposals for reform, from the modest (term limits) to the radical (court-packing), but shows that there can be no quick fix for a judicial system suffering a crisis of legitimacy. And in the end, the only measure of the Court’s legitimacy that matters is the extent to which it maintains, or rebalances, our constitutional order.

Now in its 10th year, this acclaimed annual publication brings together leading national scholars to analyze the Supreme Court's most important decisions from the term just ended and preview the year ahead.