He can do more than, as John Roberts would have him doing, in affirming the law of non-contradiction.

Jeffrey Bristol W'24 argues that content-neutral restrictions on speech diminish the substantive roots of our law that are reflective of ordered liberty.

Mourning the loss of the Boy Scouts as we know it

Hadley Arkes responds to the WSJ editorial on Kari Lake's "abortion finesse."

Gerry Bradley Responds to Daniel Dreisbach's "Reading the Bible with the Founders"

Hadley Arkes introduces a new series from friend of the Institute, Jana Paley.

The presidents of three prestigious Ivy League Universities testify before the House Committee, and as a result of this discussion, Magill resigns.

CRCD Executive Director Trey Dimsdale hopes that a focus on religious liberty protections in the states can "play a significant role in rekindling popular and political interest in federalism and republicanism for the sake of advancing and securing the liberty to which all Americans are entitled."

JWI Affiliated Scholar Daniel Mark warns that a double standard cannot form that removes the promise of equal protection of the law from Catholic institutions.

In reviewing "Mere Natural Law," scholar Jordan Perkins argues that it is necessary that legal cognition be infused with moral reasoning.

"The pitfall of the argument in favor of parents’ rights is that it makes the decision for children to be exposed to information about sexual activity or access to puberty blockers a matter of a parent’s will," writes Sarrouf.

In this article, Phillip Muñoz suggests how we can read the religious free exercise and establishment clauses in light of the Constitution’s original design and purposes, being situated properly in a tradition of natural law and rights.

Cline argues that the roots of a nation's receptiveness to the Natural Law grow from its Christian foundation.

David Deavel reviews Mere Natural Law, showing how it ddraws out the moral arguments present in nature.

Hadley Arkes reflects on the year since the overturning of "Roe v. Wade" and unpacks the next steps a brave judge could take in protecting the pre-born.

John Ehrett '21 wants a successful postliberal theory to have "bigger and brighter dreams" than Patrick Deneen does in "Regime Change."

Hal R. Arkes's testimony on a paradigmatic effort to remove mandated DEI from higher ed in one state

Judge Janice Rogers Brown delivers stirring remarks on the future of the country and the role of the judge upon receiving the 2nd JWI Leadership & Law Award.

Michael Hayes (JWF '20) analyzes the Court's positions on substantive due process in the key Dobbs decision, and makes clear that try as we might, we never can truly escape from moral reasoning and the Natural Law.

Hadley Arkes shares his own experience with student protests at Stanford Law and asks how its administration will respond to the next incident.

Prof. Jonathan Gienapp explains how Wilson's integrated view of law grounds the harmony of law and philosophy that he argued for in the Constitution's ratification debates.

Prof. John Mikhail describes the unique role of James Wilson among the Founders as both moral philosopher and legal scholar who shaped our Constitution and our concept of who "We the People" are in the United States.

Prof. Arkes argues that moral judgments, rather than belonging to legislators instead of judges, are an essential - indeed inescapable - part of the work of a judge, especially in recognizing the most basic facts that bear on their judgments.

In Part II, Assistant Editor Ted Hirt concludes with an evaluation of Phillip Munoz's understanding of the Constitution's religious clauses.

Anchoring Truths Assistant Editor Ted Hirt reviews Philip Muñoz's book, "Religious Liberty and the American Founding, Natural Rights and the Original Meanings of the First Amendment." This first of two pieces analyzes the work the Muñoz has done to outline the foundations of our Religious Liberty. 

Prof. Arkes reflects on his work crafting the Born Alive Act and takes some time to analyze the latest version of the Act, to him the best ever.

Prof. Hadley Arkes responds in the WSJ explaining how reviving the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could prove the best strategy for Republicans in Congress.

Contributing Editor Josh Hammer argues that Congress should embrace treating tech companies as common carriers according to a First Amendment standard for exemption from liability.

Capturing the mood and ethos of the National Conservatism Conference up-close

Where does Harry Jaffa's account of Natural Law differ from Thomas Aquinas’s, if at all, and how can that inform the New Right.

Josh Hammer and Josh Craddock outline the path ahead for the pro life movement at the Federal level, as legislators act to prevent our nation becoming "a house divided against itself."

JWI Affiliated Scholar Justin Dyer criticizes Justice Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case. However, he also appreciates that the dissent does not exclusively rely on historicism.

Anchoring Truths co-founder Garrett Snedeker reviews Trouble at the Bar on Law and Liberty.

The American Founders and Lincoln believed in a Natural Law and a natural lawgiver at the moral core of the project they brought forth, argues JWI Affiliated Scholar Justin Dyer

The Declaration of Independence's unique appeal globally cannot be explained by its formal aspects only

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled.” Almost fifty years after handing down its calamitous abortion decision on January 22, 1973, SCOTUS has finally corrected the biggest mistake it ever made.

James Wilson Institute Founder Hadley Arkes reflects on the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Senior Scholar David Forte praises Samuel Alito's courage, as demonstrated by his draft opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Professor Philip Hamburger takes aim at the myriad ways in which many statutes and regulations trade the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty for rule by condition.

Roe is, practically speaking, already dead — regardless of what the Court decides to do in Dobbs.

James Wilson Institute Founder Hadley Arkes writes for Public Discourse about the future of the pro-life movement after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Josh Craddock, Affiliated Scholar and alumnus of the James Wilson Fellowship, explores the best courses of action for pro-life congressmen to take after the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

In the aftermath of Judge Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court, Hadley Arkes analyzes the Senate hearings. Despite some well-timed questions, Republicans ultimately missed their chance to put Judge Jackson on the record defending the right to kill unwanted children even after birth.

Anchoring Truths co-founder Garrett Snedeker offers two cheers for Prof. Michael McConnell's recent book on executive power under the Constitution.

In a response to Ed Whelan’s critique of “On Overturning Roe,” Prof. Arkes insists that the moral argument against Roe is the only logical one for judges who believe in the deep wrong of abortion. The pro-life cause rests on objective moral truths, not on value judgments, and as a result does not require judges (as Whelan claims) “to read their own moral convictions into the Constitution.”

Kody Cooper argues that a new Supreme Court justice in the style of Sotomayor would fail to pass the "test of truth" when it comes to abortion, religious liberty, and takings. If the Senate Judiciary Committee cares about truth, it should therefore disavow the Sotomayor mold.

Responding to Richard Doerflinger's critique of "Waiting for Dobbs," Prof. Arkes asserts that conservative justices could successfully outlaw most abortions by returning to Justice White’s standard: only abort to save the mother’s life. At the same time, however, White did the pro-life cause a lasting disservice by focusing not on the rights of unborn babies but on the abuse of "raw judicial power."

Hadley Arkes recalls that day, back in 1986, when Justice Byron White, one of the original dissenters in Roe v. Wade, startled Justice John Paul Stevens by suggesting that he too could accept Roe and a “right to abortion” in some form. Stevens seemed genuinely baffled. What White was offering was an understanding that would keep Roe v. Wade as a shell, while the substance was removed. Professor Arkes tries to reconstruct that argument here as an anticipation of what might happen if the Supreme Court seeks to take “the low door under the whole” in the Dobbs case—sustaining the law in Mississippi while affecting not to overrule Roe v. Wade.