Supreme Court
The latest developments on the United States Supreme Court. Get senior correspondent Ian Millhiser’s analysis of what the Supreme Court is doing, delivered straight to your inbox with Scotus, Explained.
The Court has spent the last several years claiming the other two branches’ powers for itself.
The justices unintentionally make the case for more ethics rules that bind the Supreme Court.
The justices hand down the first decision in the mifepristone litigation saga that is not completely unhinged.
The Court can’t seem to figure out how to decide one of the easiest cases it’s ever had to consider.
The case for leaving some top college applications to chance.
The justices appeared uncharacteristically cautious in a high-stakes case about religion in the workplace.
By quietly accepting luxuries from a GOP megadonor, Thomas likely ran afoul of federal ethics law.
Groff v. DeJoy could give religious conservatives unprecedented power to make demands from their employers.
Friday’s order doesn’t mean much, but it does mean that mifepristone is still legal, for now.
Republican judges claim the power to second-guess the FDA’s scientific judgments.
Anthony Comstock, the 19th-century scourge of art and sex, is suddenly relevant again thanks to Donald Trump’s worst judge.
The federal courts are dominated by Republicans, so the appeals process could be rough.
No one knows if Donald Trump can be prosecuted for the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels.
A notoriously partisan judge has launched a new attack on one of Obamacare’s key provisions.
In an uncharacteristic move, Justice Neil Gorsuch offers a trenchant warning about giving too much power to judges.
Republicans just got a painful reminder that political stunts can backfire.
A case about a silly, poop-themed dog toy is also a case about free speech and judicial humility.
And it arrives at the Supreme Court at an absolutely horrible time.
Doctors in red states across the country are too scared to perform legal abortions. A Texas lawsuit seeks to fix that in the biggest red state.
DeSantis wants to destroy a fundament of American free speech law.
Moore v. Harper endangers elections in the United States. Now it seems likely to disappear.
The most important question in US law is which political party controls the Supreme Court.
That’s actually good news.
Ordinarily, this lawsuit would be laughed out of court. But you never can tell with Trump’s judges.
The pillar of internet free speech seems to be everyone’s target.
This is what happens when important laws make no sense.
How a landmark Supreme Court decision was shaped by the racist idea that poor children can’t learn.
The justices probably won’t shut down major websites like Google, Twitter, or YouTube.
What if the Biden administration simply ignored court orders from the most partisan Republican judges?
Arizona v. Mayorkas shows how the Court’s Republican majority can manipulate its own procedures for partisan ends.
Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh seek to conscript big tech into the war on terror; the results could be disastrous.
The Justice Department hopes to neutralize Trump’s worst judge.
The law is very explicit that Biden’s student debt relief program is lawful. The Court’s Republican majority is unlikely to care.
A Democratic federal judge suggests that banning abortion violates the 13th Amendment’s prohibition on “involuntary servitude.”
We’re starting to see the fallout from the Supreme Court’s most recent Second Amendment decision.
The longtime opponent of free speech adds the Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the list of constitutional rights he wants to abridge.
An unhinged case brought by anti-vaxxers will be heard by one of the biggest reactionaries in the federal judiciary.
We are only beginning to see the legal fallout from the Supreme Court eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion.
The fight over whether religious conservatives enjoy special rights is coming to a workplace near you.
The Florida governor (and likely presidential candidate) appears to believe that government exists to advance his ideas — and to suppress dissent.