Donald Trump has been saying the quiet part out loud for some time now.

At oral arguments, the high court’s conservatives seemed inclined to back gay conversion therapy. But they ultimately may not stop there.

Donald Trump suddenly has no clue who Ghislaine Maxwell is.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the far-right commentator’s censorship case.

The Supreme Court is not interested in saving Jeffrey Epstein’s accomplice.

Stopping and reversing the degradation of the Trump era will require a more radical strategy—and a bigger target.

The Supreme Court has saved Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook’s job—for now.

The Roberts court has unerringly sided against anyone seeking to curb political corruption, and it would be a shock if it decided to switch sides now.

If things stay true to form, President Trump will benefit from the Roberts court’s generous takes on executive power. The rest of us may not be so lucky.

Former Federal Reserve and Treasury chiefs warned of serious consequences if Donald Trump is not stopped.

The court’s conservatives spent last term bailing out the administration with shadow docket shams. Now they must reckon with all the cans they kicked down the road.

The president’s attempt to bind his political opponents legally is hitting roadblocks galore—and the social media meltdowns have begun.

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

While the Roberts court has issued a trove of suspect decisions over the years, the one area of the law in which it’s been consistently virtuous is the First Amendment.

Donald Trump has made baseless accusations of mortgage fraud against the Federal Reserve governor.

Between a permissive Supreme Court and his own governing innovations, the president has greatly expanded executive power. Liberals, take note.

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.