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.

Defendants seeking relief from capital punishment typically don’t win at the high court, but Richard Glossip’s case was a bridge too far—for most of the justices, anyway.

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.

There are many dire consequences of Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump. This is one of the worst.

During his presidency, the high court’s conservatives proved to be resistant to the idea that Donald Trump was their legal client. This year, that all changed.

A new case the high court may take up this term concerns when judges should recuse themselves. It’s a problem with which these justices are intimately familiar.

The liberal justice, dissenting from the majority’s ruling on Trump’s immunity case, quoted the court’s Dobbs decision back to them.

Thursday’s ruling in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy avoided the worst-case scenarios.

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

The court’s bump-stock ruling is a shell game.

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

Calls are mounting for the liberal justice to take her leave. Instead, Democrats should focus on winning elections.

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 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.

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

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.

Critics of the liberal justices’ ethical lapses aren’t trying to make the case for reform—they’re trying to kill it.

The Supreme Court justice’s buckraking hardly compares to that of her conservative colleagues. But it still says a lot about how much Washington has changed.

The high court’s ruling on the nature of “transformative” works of art could have major ramifications for artists working today—as well as the A.I. enthusiasts looking toward tomorrow.