Kagan warned the court was allowing “what our own precedent bars.”

Every liberal justice on the Supreme Court issued a scathing dissent in the decision to let ICE resume its racial-profiling tactics.

For the court’s conservative bloc, the line between upholding the Constitution and serving as Donald Trump’s personal attorneys has all but disappeared.

The Supreme Court upheld a decision allowing age-verification laws for online porn.

Justice Elena Kagan ripped her conservative colleagues for undermining federal agencies.

The legal reasoning on this point is unbelievably sloppy—even for this court.

Donald Trump apparently can’t handle the fact that the justices thought his arguments were bad.

The Trump administration’s brief against the Fourteenth Amendment is a bad one, and it naturally led to some tortured legal reasoning from his solicitor general.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was unconvinced by the government’s arguments on birthright citizenship.

William Rehnquist went from a lonely dissenter to an institutionalist chief—and his opinions are all the rage among the court’s current conservatives.

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

Idaho hospitals may perform emergency abortions—for now.

The high court’s decision to leave a controversial lower court decision intact does not necessarily spell doom for First Amendment rights.

The justices unanimously ignored the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment to keep Trump on the Colorado ballot—but some of them ignored their oaths as well.

The justices spent Thursday’s oral arguments looking for an off-ramp from kicking the former president out of the presidential race.

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.

But the conservative majority seemed less inclined to upend the administrative state.

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.

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

Instead of greeting the most recent set of decisions from the Roberts Court with downcast disses, critics should recognize—and celebrate—the way they influenced the results.