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.

The high court’s new guidelines have come in for a lot of criticism, but they’re the perfect platform for reformers to keep applying pressure.

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

He and his legal team claim the Constitution absolves him of any responsibility for January 6. It does not.

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

A pair of minor league clubs are asking the court to reverse the league’s lucrative 101-year-old antitrust exemption.

Paul Singer, who underwrote the justice’s Alaska fishing trip, has a hedge fund that holds a large stake in a banking services company with 5,100 CFPB complaints. What will Sam do?

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

The associate justice says Congress has no authority to regulate the Supreme Court. The Constitution he allegedly reveres says otherwise. A lot.

Joe Kennedy’s phony tale of religious discrimination may have reached a predictable end this week, but it illuminated an important truth about the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court justice is refusing to recuse from an upcoming case with one of his colleagues.

At least one Supreme Court justice thinks something needs to change.

The Supreme Court justice is warning Congress to give up its attempts to impose a code of ethics on the court.

The Federalist Society’s leader is hoping to pluck a “get out of jail free” card from Donald Trump’s back pocket.

To the right, it’s a “clean” alternative to abortion—mothers can just drop their babies off in fire station boxes. And it’s spreading across the country. How did a desperate and once criminal act get turned into a good thing?

Given the recent ethics questions about justices’ interactions with billionaires, it’s an interesting case to take on.

A year after Dobbs, it’s clear who is suffering the brunt of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

It does illustrate the judicial ethics system’s blind spots, however.

The Supreme Court justice accepted a luxury vacation from a Republican megadonor, didn’t disclose it, and then ruled on one of his cases.

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