Ian Millhiser
Ian Millhiser is a legal analyst and journalist who focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He has written extensively on how conservative judges and politicians are reshaping America through their decisions and actions. Prior to joining Vox, Ian was a columnist at ThinkProgress and clerked for Judge Eric L. Clay of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He is the author of two books on the Supreme Court: Injustices: The Supreme Court's History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted and The Agenda: How a Republican Supreme Court Is Reshaping America. Ian received his JD from Duke University, where he served as senior note editor on the Duke Law Journal and was elected to the Order of the Coif. He is a regular contributor to various news outlets and is often sought after for his expert commentary on legal and political issues.
Biography:
https://www.vox.com/authors/ian-millhiser
89%
The Daily's Verdict
This author has a mixed reputation for journalistic standards. It is advisable to fact-check, scrutinize for bias, and check for conflicts of interest before relying on the author's reporting.
Bias
90%
Examples:
- The author has a tendency to present conservative judges and their actions in a sympathetic light.
- The author seems to have a strong focus on the negative impacts of right-wing judges and policies.
- There is an emphasis on how certain decisions could potentially harm marginalized groups.
Conflicts of Interest
95%
Examples:
- The author frequently mentions potential conflicts of interest involving conservative judges and politicians.
- The author highlights instances where individuals in positions of power may have ulterior motives.
- There is an emphasis on how certain actions could be influenced by personal or political agendas.
Contradictions
90%
Examples:
- In several articles, the author points out contradictions in arguments made by conservative judges and politicians.
- The author highlights instances where actions taken by right-wing judges go against established law.
- There is a focus on how certain policies and decisions go against previously held principles or laws.
Deceptions
85%
Examples:
- The author calls out deceptive practices used by conservative judges and politicians.
- The author highlights instances where information is presented in a way that may be misleading to the reader.
- There is an emphasis on how certain actions could be misleading or manipulative.
Recent Articles
Supreme Court Strips SEC of Power to Impose Fines and Seize Assets Through Administrative Law Judges: Implications for Federal Agencies and Jarkesy's Case
Broke On: Thursday, 27 June 2024In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cannot impose fines or force wrongdoers to return ill-gotten gains through administrative law judges (ALJs), overturning Jarkesy's $1 million penalty for securities misstatements. The ruling could impact dozens of federal agencies, potentially stripping them of their ability to seek civil penalties. 
Supreme Court Rules on Biden Administration's Social Media Censorship Cases: Plaintiffs Lack Standing
Broke On: Wednesday, 26 June 2024The Supreme Court ruled against state attorneys general in Murthy v. Missouri and Alito v. Biden cases, determining they lacked standing to challenge the Biden administration's communications with social media companies over alleged censorship of certain topics. 
Former President Trump and the Resurfacing Debate Over Reproductive Rights and the Comstock Act
Broke On: Tuesday, 21 May 2024Former President Trump's conflicting statements on reproductive rights and the resurfacing of the Comstock Act as a potential tool for restricting access to contraception and abortion have fueled ongoing debates in US politics. The Comstock Act, which could ban certain drugs or articles intended for producing abortion, has been challenged legally due to its vague language and past court decisions interpreting it narrowly. Trump's allies propose using this law without new federal legislation to ban abortions, but it's unclear if Trump intends to pursue such measures. Supreme Court Debates Conflict Between Federal Law and Idaho's Abortion Ban in Moyle v. United States
Broke On: Wednesday, 24 April 2024The Supreme Court debated the Moyle v. United States case on April 24, 2024, addressing the conflict between Idaho's abortion ban and federal law mandating emergency care. During oral arguments, justices questioned how Idaho's law applies to non-life-threatening medical emergencies and potential conflicts with federal requirements. The Court appears divided on this issue, with some favoring women's access to emergency abortion care and others supporting states' rights. 
Texas Allowed to Enforce Controversial Immigration Law, Setting Precedent for Other States
Broke On: Tuesday, 19 March 2024The Supreme Court has allowed Texas to immediately enforce a controversial immigration law that allows state officials to arrest and detain people they suspect of entering the country illegally. This decision sets a precedent that could encourage other states to follow suit, with significant implications for immigration policy in Texas and beyond. 
Supreme Court's Humiliating Mess: Encouraging Social Media Moderation of Dangerous Lies About Pandemic
Broke On: Monday, 18 March 2024The Supreme Court debated whether government officials can pressure social media companies to regulate content, specifically regarding false information about a pandemic. Judge Doughty's ruling was inconsistent and inaccurate. New Policy to Restrict Judge Shopping in Federal Courts Ensures Impartiality and Prevents Bias
Broke On: Wednesday, 13 March 2024Federal courts have implemented a new policy to restrict judge shopping and ensure impartiality in judicial decisions by randomly assigning judges for civil suits that affect an entire state or country. 
Supreme Court to Review Trump's Immunity in Election Interference Case
Broke On: Thursday, 29 February 2024The Supreme Court is reviewing whether former President Trump has immunity from prosecution in a federal election interference case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The decision could have significant implications for the future of justice in America. 
Supreme Court Allows West Point to Continue Using Race in Admissions Process
Broke On: Saturday, 03 February 2024The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the United States Military Academy at West Point, allowing it to continue using race as a factor in its admissions process. The court denied an emergency request from Students for Fair Admissions (SFA) that sought to temporarily block West Point's use of race while SFA's lawsuit against the academy proceeded through lower courts.
