The Supreme Court justice has some thoughts on Bondi’s vow to crack down on “hate speech.”

The administration’s decision to launch an attack against alleged drug runners in the Caribbean is a lawless act—or at least it used to be.

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.

Whether motivated by animus or naïveté, the justice’s rationale for permitting law enforcement to racially profile suspects has dark implications for democracy.

This Supreme Court is failing us.

Since the Supreme Court gutted Roe, interest in old folk methods of terminating pregnancies has spiked. But the health and legal risks involved with these treatments are stark.

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.

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

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.

In her lawsuit against Trump, the law is firmly on the beleaguered Federal Reserve Governor’s side. But that doesn’t mean the high court is.

The conservative justices have let the president have his way with the administrative state. Now he’s coming for the one institution they’ve been reluctant to let fall into his hands.

The president woke up today in an uproar about Old Glory. He then took it out on the First Amendment.

The Show Me State’s ambitious attempt to nullify federal law may be several steps too far for many of the high court’s conservatives.

The Fifth Circuit has done the mogul’s bidding and neutered the National Labor Relations Board, in a move that will likely substantially damage workers’ rights.

The most recent petition demanding a repeal of the landmark gay marriage law has lit headlines afire, but there are signs that the Supreme Court is not yet ready to do the deed.

The Supreme Court has been asked to hear a new case about the future of same-sex marriage.

Ghislaine Maxwell, who is seeking a pardon from Donald Trump, told the Department of Justice exactly what they wanted to hear.

As Donald Trump scrambles to control the Epstein fallout, Ghislaine Maxwell smells an opportunity.

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 tariff lawsuit has turned into a revealing window into how the legal sausage is made—and how the conservative justices are providing the president with the blueprints he needs to win.