The Supreme Court justice talks about sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and the cases she’d like to see overturned.
The latest attempt to use the Supreme Court to eviscerate a key liberal constituency seems like a thoroughly partisan operation.
Republican lawmakers are increasingly showing disdain for decisions made by the judicial branch—and by extension the rule of law.
The Justice Department filed to dismiss the corruption charges against the New Jersey Democrat.
The Supreme Court faces a test of the authority of politicians to use police to silence their critics.
In a case with huge implications for the franchise, the Supreme Court will decide whether states can remove voters from the rolls after two years without casting a ballot.
A federal ruling offers the justices a clever way to reject Trump’s travel ban without limiting government power over immigration.
Conservatives are attempting to use the First Amendment not as an instrument of freedom and self-government but as a corporate privilege.
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.
A federal court enjoined much of a Texas law that punished officials who dared “endorse” the view that its provisions were harmful to public safety.
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.
The Supreme Court could leave a legacy as enduring as Brown v Board of Education.
The former acting solicitor general said that the Republican blockade against the onetime Supreme Court nominee represented a breakdown of checks and balances.
In Trinity v. Comer, there was no remaining dispute between the actual parties—and both the majority opinion and the leading dissent got the issue wrong.
The Supreme Court granted review of the president’s travel ban in October, but the Court clearly hopes—and strongly hints—that the case will be moot by then.
Trinity Lutheran v. Comer finds that governments can’t discriminate against churches that would otherwise qualify for funding just because they’re religious institutions.