The 5-4 ruling in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis could weaken workplace protections—and the justices on both sides knew it.
The Supreme Court considered whether lawyers can decide what is best for clients and ignore their wishes.
Two cases offer very different solutions to a perennial problem of politicians attempting to cement themselves in power.
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case over California’s regulation of “crisis pregnancy centers,” which try to talk their clients out of ending their pregnancies.
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.