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.
There’s simply not enough time to do this properly before the election.
Expanding the Supreme Court makes sense for both practical and constitutional reasons.
Bill Barr is convinced that the country is betraying its founding—and that it’s up to him to stop it.
The justice understood that the two great principles of American democracy—equality and liberty—are not at odds, but rather integral to each other.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concludes an era of faith in courts as partners in the fight for progress and equality.
But they could help restore confidence in the confirmation process and eliminate public concerns about aging justices.
Remembering a woman who meant the world to those lucky enough to work for her
And the country.
In one of her most revealing interviews, the justice discusses her losses, her struggles, and her hope for the future.
The Supreme Court’s majority is transforming this onetime protection into a sword to strike down hard-fought advances in civil rights.
Over the past 50 years, America has given up on the Enlightenment-era ideals of its Founders—and the country’s coronavirus disaster is the result.
The country has narrowly averted catastrophic deadlocks over the presidential-election outcome before. We may not be so fortunate in 2020.
Rather than completely eliminate the procedure, Democrats should reform it so that it continues to exist for truly extraordinary circumstances.
But Americans can still fight to protect democracy this year and beyond.
His tribe objected. The victim’s family objected. Even the case’s original prosecutor objected. But he’s scheduled to get the death penalty anyway.
We can’t assume that all will be fine in the end, but history shows us that times of unrest are opportunities, too.
The persistence of birtherism is a depressing feature of our corrupt and hateful national dialogue.
Short of an outright constitutional crisis, a lot could still go horribly wrong.
“Unlawful assembly” is like “illegal writing” or “forbidden religious exercise”: There surely may be such a thing, but what qualifies?
The goal shouldn’t be to make the Court less ideological, but to make it less powerful.
And it starts with undermining the U.S. Postal Service.
Saying nothing often is saying something.
Section 1981 has been on the books for more than 150 years. But its promise has never been fulfilled.
Trump’s words are dangerous, and society must find ways big and small to push back.
Unconstitutional police activity is not conservative. It’s authoritarian.
How should a textualist deal with bad case law?
The past decade has witnessed a dangerous trend: a judicial branch that expresses deep suspicion of the legislative branch’s competence and motives.
Whatever its shape, the era ahead must rekindle the aspiration of a nation molded in the ideal of perfect equality.
The Supreme Court has betrayed the promise of equal citizenship by allowing police to arrest and kill Americans at will.
Why is the Supreme Court giving more deference to a state grand jury than the Congress of the United States?
Nonmembers who flout tribal stay-at-home orders could pose an existential threat to tribal communities.
American democracy requires informed citizens. But in many places, the industry responsible is withering before our eyes.
The groundwork is now in place for major conservative wins in the years ahead.
Properly understood, the commutation of Roger Stone’s sentence is unconstitutional.
The chief justice has worked to persuade his colleagues to put institutional legitimacy above partisanship.
As to Trump’s claim to what his legal team once characterized as “temporary absolute presidential immunity,” the Supreme Court’s answer was simple: No.
The chief justice is signaling his willingness to roll back abortion rights—if only activists would listen.
Religious groups are getting special treatment from the government’s pandemic-relief efforts.
The Supreme Court has now given its approval to something LGBTQ people have long fought for: the opportunity to live and thrive in this country.
A president’s behavior need not be precedent-setting.
America’s courts have placed little value on the rights of black people.
Being a Dreamer is.
The legal reasoning may look like it turns on obscure technicalities, but the administration’s cases are falling apart because of something much more deeply wrong.
But the Supreme Court refused to say that rescinding DACA won’t occur in the future.