Trump-appointed judges are to blame.

The justices heard a case challenging a federal law restricting guns for domestic abusers—and saw an opportunity to clean up the mess their previous gun ruling has caused.

Now that the Supreme Court has upended the labor landscape of amateur sports, the college athletics cartel looks to lawmakers for help.

Justices Roberts and Barrett joined the liberals to uphold federal regulations on so-called “ghost guns.”

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s defenders may have won over some of the Supreme Court’s conservative justices.

Liberal pressure contributed to an unexpected tempering of the conservative justices’ extremes last time out. We’ll know soon if that will endure.

The high court had little to say in the face of the state’s defiance, but that silence spoke volumes.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are defiant, the rest are varying levels of quiet.

The Roberts court made a rare ruling in favor of voting rights back in July, but a later decision may have given state lawmakers a winning hand to play.

The Supreme Court justice’s buckraking hardly compares to that of her conservative colleagues. But it still says a lot about how much Washington has changed.

It’s a long fight—but it has already begun, with promising results.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined with the court’s liberals, but would they do it again?

It isn’t a coincidence. The court is corrupt, both judicially and ethically, because of the extreme ideology six of its justices serve.

A case involving the EPA’s protection of wetlands somehow became a forum for some fiery justice-on-justice warfare over textualism.

And it’s entirely possible if he becomes president.

On abortion medication, the justices would have very good reasons to leave the status quo intact for FDA drug approvals.

Why a relatively young legal doctrine has become all the rage among the court’s right-wing majority

There are enough justices who seem to oppose the president’s proposal on the merits. That doesn’t mean there are enough votes to strike it down—yet.

The Supreme Court might end an infuriatingly unjust practice in criminal sentencing.

Both sides argued that the wrong ruling would have dire consequences for international relations. The justices left them guessing.