No, the high court hasn’t had a change of heart where gerrymandering is concerned. But it does seem to have little stomach for electoral chicanery.

Donald Trump’s supporters are not happy with the Supreme Court justice he appointed.

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

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’.

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.

Kavanaugh does not consider birthright citizenship to be a done deal.

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.

Florida’s use of six-person juries is heavily at odds with our legal traditions—and on a collision course with a hostile high court.

Brendan Sorsby may have violated the league’s rules, but college football’s governing body is discovering just how unsustainable the organization’s legal status really is.

While it’s not a surprise that the high court reached a just conclusion, it’s troubling to see how many justices didn’t join the majority.

A recent shadow docket decision suggests that the court isn’t hungry for further legal restrictions on abortion. But there are two familiar holdouts.

Despite their handing him an endless array of political wins over the past few years, the president still believes his nominees haven’t shown sufficient loyalty.

The conservative bloc has dismantled the law that ensures that Black Americans can fully participate in American electoral politics.

The recent oral arguments in an important voting rights case suggest that the right wing of the high court has a suspect media diet.

It may look like the justices made a clean break with the president, but the mess the conservative bloc made for itself raises some major questions.

During oral arguments on Tuesday, the conservative justices only seemed to diverge over how far their ruling should go.

Now that the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc is putting the unitary executive theory to the test, its cracks are beginning to show—and its proponents are flailing.

The Roberts court is about to hand the president—and an untold number of financial predators—a massive win.

At oral arguments in the tariffs case, the conservative justices seemed ready to hit the president with the legal rationale they used to bedevil Joe Biden.

The court’s majority typically doesn’t disclose their reasoning on shadow docket cases. Here’s one instance where a justice may regret speaking their mind.