The high court’s recent run at rewriting the Constitution has come for the establishment clause.

The Native plaintiffs have won over a wide variety of allies to their case. But for some reason, the high court is dragging its feet in making a decision.

The Supreme Court has rebuffed these efforts before, but that was nearly a half-century ago. Today’s MAGA conservatives see a more favorable legal environment—and they might be right.

The high court’s 7-2 decision suggests broad agreement on a contentious issue. But if you read between the lines, there are fault lines everywhere.

Trump’s executive order stripping federal workers of legal protections is the most dangerous of his unlawful power grabs. But there is a way to win them back.

The high court appeared ready to deal a savage blow to the rights and livelihoods of a group that conservatives have spent the year targeting.

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

In his new book he rails against the regulatory state and explains why judges should have its power instead.

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

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.

In Friday’s ruling on domestic violence and the Second Amendment, the other eight justices rejected his approach to originalism.

The Supreme Court will have a chance to decide whether lawmakers went too far in regulating the industry.

The recent Texas razor-wire case highlights the way the justices can use the so-called “shadow docket” to resolve disputes while obfuscating their rationale.

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.

Philip Anschutz has funded some of the parties involved in the case the justice will hear on Wednesday. He also has extensive ties to the justice himself.

At Tuesday’s oral arguments, the justices seemed bent on a narrow ruling that would preserve the tax code—and not preemptively rule a wealth tax unconstitutional.

An appeals panel led by a Trump appointee is giving the Supreme Court the chance to gut one of the few major provisions remaining in the law.

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.

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