America must regulate guns not only to protect life, but to protect its citizens’ equal freedoms to speak, assemble, worship, and vote without fear.
Conservative justices seem poised to use complex, technical doctrines that will likely sanction all manner of state voter-suppression measures.
And those paying attention haven’t missed it.
The 45th president profoundly altered our system of government.
The impeachment trial offers a chance to show how Donald Trump tried to undermine the election’s legitimacy for months—not just on the day of the Capitol attack.
The First Amendment does not limit the removal and disqualification powers conferred on Congress by the Constitution.
People may like to believe that the Court can accommodate conservative religious groups without causing much harm, but that does not seem to be the case.
Prohibiting Trump from running again is no outlandish measure, but an expressly constitutional remedy.
Should Richard Nixon have faced criminal prosecution? A never-before-published article from 1974, written by a leading legal scholar, offers answers that speak to the present.
We can’t rely on the private sector to protect the common good.
Liberals once believed that private corporations have far too much power over the flow of ideas and information in today’s society. Now it’s conservatives who are worried.
The whole American government is premised on the idea that politicians will act in their own interests. A Senate that won’t protect itself from attack can’t protect the country.
Could a truth and reconciliation commission help the country heal?
Following Trump’s intensely polarizing presidency, Biden’s message of decency, truth, constitutional integrity, and care for one another is more imperative than ever.
The Senate must convict Trump in order to disqualify him from ever holding public office again.
One hundred and forty-seven Republican members of Congress voted to sustain a delusion in the American mind.
Republicans are arguing that going after him will do irreversible damage to American democracy. Don’t believe them.
The NRA and its allies have argued for years that citizens need to arm themselves for a fight against tyranny.
There can be no confusion over who is president, even for a moment.
Trump’s allies are not making good-faith arguments within America’s legal system. Rather, this is a challenge to the legal system.
No law can stop reckless people from trying to thwart the popular will, but we should still address the obvious weak spots in our system.
Religious, pro-abortion-rights voices were not always so rare.
George Mason anticipated the president’s act more than 230 years ago.
He may now attempt what no one thought a president would ever try.
The justices’ decision not to wade into a sloppy coup attempt is no victory for rule of law.
A federal judge will decide next month whether the U.S. legal system treats presidential allies differently from presidential antagonists.
Proposals from libertarian, conservative, and progressive scholars displayed a few striking differences—but also some profound similarities.
The courts have refused to be made pawns in President Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.
These lawsuits have upended courts’ role in interpreting voting laws.
It never has.
What the president and his lawyers have been attempting to do deserves punishment that will likely never come.
The path lies not in legislation but through the deregulation of mifepristone—the only drug the FDA has approved to safely and effectively terminate an early pregnancy.
The president’s abuse of his clemency power is an assault on one of the few truly humane aspects of the American legal system.
Each day, it becomes more urgent that Republicans and conservatives speak in defense of institutions and in defiance of the president’s posture.
The legislative branch is constitutionally charged with checking abuses in the executive branch—and it must act to ensure a smooth transition.
The president may not have to worry about keeping a job after January 20, 2021, but the attorneys doing his bidding at the moment certainly do.
The president’s litigation strategy is unlikely to succeed, but it’s doing great harm in the meantime.
Millions of Americans could lose their insurance—and neither Joe Biden nor the states will be in a good position to do much about it.
His bald complaints are not viable legal claims—and the courts won’t save him.
Counting ballots takes time—and the process isn’t required to arbitrarily stop at the end of Election Day.
Enabling sustained minority rule at the national level is not a feature of our constitutional design, but a perversion of it.
What was once constitutionally prohibited is now constitutionally required.
The idea that people of faith must be protected from discrimination—even when that means they themselves will discriminate against others—is gaining traction in the courts.
Even if Trump were resolved to thwart a smooth transition, much of the process lies entirely outside his control.
The Constitution should be the sturdy vessel of our ideals and aspirations, not a derelict sailing ship locked in the ice of a world far from our own.
The Court may well invalidate the law, but not without taking a considerable risk.
An overlooked corner of the Constitution hints at a right to be protected from infection.
The Bush v. Gore fight has become the template of a disputed election, but many of the worst-case scenarios could end up before Congress, not the Court.
The United States is the only country that allows this practice, and soon the Supreme Court could get rid of it.
The multiday spectacle gave viewers little understanding of the most important issue the Court will rule on: how Americans vote and whether those votes matter.
And the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against her is a disgrace.
Pay attention to phrases such as settled law and stare decisis, and a whole other layer of meaning will come to the fore.
Those tasked with administering justice are overwhelmingly white and male, while the country is not.
The concept of precedent isn’t valuable just for the guidance it provides but also for the confidence it instills in political and legal systems. Republicans are treating it recklessly.
Seven months into the pandemic, courts around the country are beginning to restart their criminal dockets. But the practical obstacles are staggering.
Having one document that sets up a government does not result in better democratic outcomes than having a mix of statutes, norms, and precedents.
The Supreme Court told citizens to improve the country’s democracy by passing ballot initiatives. They tried.
In the 1940s, the scholar William Ernest Hocking envisioned a theory under which the government actively facilitated free speech.
The state previews how far Republican judges will go to obstruct Democrats in office.
Rules exist for what could come next, but they won’t prevent total chaos.