A little-noticed decision this week by a federal appeals court could have massive implications for the anonymous corporations and wealthy donors who influence our elections.

Democrats spent part of their week identifying the real people who’d be harmed by Project 2025. They should follow these instincts from now till November.

Everyone’s wondering what the Democratic nominee plans to do in office. Not much, without the permission of Chief Justice John Roberts and his cronies.

Trump’s election permitted conservatives to cement their hold on the court. This year could be as important.

The courts no longer have to bow to executive whims, which may give noncitizens a better chance.

The right-wing justices declared open season on regulations that don’t just protect the environment, health, and safety, but the economy too.

The high court sent nine cases back to the lower courts in light of recent rulings weakening federal agency authority.

Killing off Chevron deference, the court moves power to the judicial branch, portending chaos.

Conservative justices this week confused nitrous oxide with nitrogen oxides and then insisted that they, not the EPA, were the final word on environmental regulations.

Justice Kagan issued a scathing dissent of her conservative colleagues, who she claims are desperate for power.

Before Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the fishermen who brought the case were focused on New Jersey wind projects.

The administration's escalation of an open-ended conflict with the Houthis has reawakened the long-running debate over who has the power to go to war.

At oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts emerged as the likely deciding vote in a case that will determine whether unelected judges take control of the administrative state.

The former president made little headway while in office against the administrative state, but the Roberts court is ready to step in.

Two cases this term might cement a new order of judicial supremacy—and end the idea of a government by “We the People.”

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

The justices have agreed to hear a case that could make it easier to kneecap federal agencies.

The high court cast aside the people’s elected representatives to enact the climate-denial agenda of the megadonors who funded its nominations. It won’t stop there.

The court’s conservatives seem eager to take apart the mechanics of liberal governance, but they’re having commitment issues.

Progressive Democrats are right to call for more aggressive use of regulatory powers. But like the Democrats’ congressional majorities, these may not last forever.