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

If you’re wondering how the high court’s lawless sausage got made, we must turn to an obscure line from a long-forgotten 1977 case.

If the chief justice was once a judicial institutionalist, he has become all too eager to cast norms and precedent aside in matters that benefit Trump.

The Supreme Court’s burgeoning conflict with the lower courts is rooted in whether the courts should show fealty to law and legal precedent or to an authoritarian president.

The justice wrote a scathing dissenting opinion in the court’s latest decision to back Donald Trump.

A pair of death penalty decisions reaffirms a sad fact about the high court: There is a majority of justices who want to keep the executions coming.

The Roberts court is taking up cases with phantasmal litigants and speculative complaints. But how it resolves them could have a massive impact on American life.

Long before the 6–3 court hands down rulings, the cases it chooses to hear have a tidal effect on the nation’s ideological drift.

The chief justice’s veiled end-of-year remarks seem to indicate that if the high court cannot reform itself, reform will be forced upon it.