Donald Trump promised religious voters that he would protect them with his Supreme Court appointments. The justices are not necessarily playing along.
Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund discusses Wisconsin’s election debacle and how the coronavirus has become a new tool of voter suppression.
Nearly 700,000 people’s futures are at stake.
A decade ago, West Virginia foreshadowed the influence that money and politics have come to have on state judiciaries. Now it may warn of a worrying new trend.
Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination is one sign of unity among divided denominations.
Republican lawmakers are increasingly showing disdain for decisions made by the judicial branch—and by extension the rule of law.
The Supreme Court faces a test of the authority of politicians to use police to silence their critics.
The former federal prosecutor and deputy counsel to the Department of Homeland Security writes that the prohibition violates the Constitution.
An upcoming case shows how American democracy is threatened by the creativity of those who would try to disenfranchise the other side’s voters.
Justice Neil Gorsuch exemplifies how the Supreme Court has become fully enmeshed in the rankest partisan politics.
The Supreme Court may not be the right place to settle the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which pits marriage equality against religious freedom.
Though its major import is President Trump’s official endorsement of racist discrimination in law enforcement, a flagrant contempt for judges is the subtext.
In many recent social and legal battles, large consumer companies have weighed in on the side of marginalized and endangered groups.
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer finds that governments can’t discriminate against churches that would otherwise qualify for funding just because they’re religious institutions.
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will review the president’s controversial executive order next term. But in the meantime, the administration can enforce some of its provisions.
The justices unanimously limited the federal government’s power to strip immigrants of their hard-won status.
America’s courts—presently a thorn in the president’s side—are about to get a lot more conservative. And they will probably stay that way for a very long time.
The verdict could have significant implications for the case testing the Trump administration’s “travel ban,” barring entry of persons from six majority-Muslim countries.
Challengers are parading different standards before the U.S. Supreme Court justice, trying to offer a definition of partisan gerrymandering he’ll find acceptable.
Fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, but the issues involved in the case extended beyond its current popular understanding as a tribute to romance.