The Supreme Court okays unwarranted DNA swabs, but Scalia says Patrick Henry would disapprove.
Colorado has crippled its own ability to tax. And now some citizens say that's depriving them of their right to a republican government.
In a historic speech, the president suggests it's time to limit executive ability to use lethal force against alleged extremists.
The judiciary can't fix this: The Supreme Court has a poor track record protecting journalists from the government.
Government officials need a refresher course in the First Amendment "anti-retaliation" principle.
The court's judges are obstructing appointments to a key regulatory body. But since the Senate won't confirm Obama's own judicial picks, the appointments will stay stuck.
A unanimous decision on FOIA rules suggests the justices are in a rather modest mood.
Emotions crackle as the justices take on a contested child custody case involving the Cherokee Nation.
"Originalism" allows judges to read into the founding document any ideas they want. Nowhere is the problem clearer than in the ongoing saga of the presidential recess appointment power.
A scrambled Supreme Court majority says it counts as a search, but disagrees on the reasoning.
The crowds rallying for a decisive statement on equality should prepare for anticlimax, and perhaps disappointment.
In today's oral argument, those on the bench worried aloud about social change, caution, and the danger of doing too much too soon.
Will he honor states' rights or gay rights? He has a long track record of support for both.
The Supreme Court seems poised to reject a form that simplifies voter registration -- on the grounds that some of its members could have designed a better one.
By focusing on improbable dangers to everyday people, the senator distracted Americans from the real issues.
An administration headed by a smart lawyer is unable to grasp that to the American people, secret law is hard to tell from no law at all.
Is being told to open up for an oral swab more intrusive than taking fingerprints?
Opponents of 5 of the Voting Rights Act are invoking the "dignity" of covered states. That "dignity" is as imaginary as Harvey the Giant Rabbit.
Virginia goes to the Supreme Court over a law that limits public-records access to its residents. Here's why it matters for all Americans.
In our system, courts don't grant indulgences or offer absolution; they decide cases, and they don't advise the President.