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.
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.
Opponents of the practice won a series of notable cases at the U.S. Supreme Court this term, even as total victory in their war against the death penalty moved further out of reach.
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.
In two First Amendment rulings released this week, the justices argue they're saving would-be censors from themselves.
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.