The courts may have closed the book on this sorry chapter of our history, but the dreadful reckoning remains.

The president’s gluttony for graft is the only truly remarkable thing about his political career.

Much of what ails us can be blamed on the steady degradation of the legislature as the other branches of government grabbed power for themselves. It’s time to start undoing the damage.

The justice recently contended against the notion that the court has become a rubber stamp for Trump. She’s not wrong—but that’s just part of the story.

These are the ingredients that have set up a major Supreme Court case about excessive fines that could shape the future of criminal asset forfeiture across the United States.

The high court’s decision in Landor v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections and Public Safety could incapacitate the legislative branch’s policymaking powers.

In the high court’s latest term, the chief practitioners of this purportedly neutral doctrine had a hard time keeping their stories straight.

The conservative legal movement lost its bid to eradicate birthright citizenship, but its war on the Reconstruction Amendments is going to continue.

His 10-page opinion is strangely adrift from rhyme or reason, and it ends up reinforcing a far more extreme position than any of his colleagues’.

With the Supreme Court allowing the end of Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians, national and local economies could feel the sting.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the Progressive era takes it on the chin.

The ruling was ultimately a victory for the Fourteenth Amendment and a loss for the conservative legal movement that’s been trying to erase it.

Split rulings in two presidential appointment cases allowed John Roberts to have his cake and eat it too. The rest of us will pay the price.

The conservative bloc’s only consistent practice is its inconsistent application of its own “history-and-tradition” test.

The smart and totally justified way to do it: Increase the number of judicial circuits.

Samuel Alito led the majority on a despicable, precedent-shredding misadventure so that they could whitewash the president’s calumnies and expel the refugees he hates.

A pair of less heralded decisions shine a bright light on the Roberts court’s appetite for constitutional destruction.

An upcoming case in the high court’s next term may determine whether people in federal custody can seek legal remedy for violations of their constitutional rights.

The latest Second Amendment case is just the latest to highlight the chaos wrought by the high court’s new “history and tradition” test.