There is no originalist case for presidential immunity.
Responses to articles about the case before the Supreme Court. Also: Perspectives on the campus protests; how children value trees as homes for animals.
The Biden administration is arguing that Idaho’s near-total abortion ban violates a federal law on emergency treatment.
Here we are, watching the narrow, tawdry version of the trial the nation ought to have had 50 years ago.
The law, meant to shield minors from sexual materials on the internet by requiring adults to prove they are 18, was challenged on First Amendment grounds.
In arguing to the Supreme Court that he cannot be charged for acts while in office, Donald Trump has asked the justices to enforce a norm that he has long threatened to shatter.
Prosecutors believe Donald J. Trump’s official acts in trying to overturn the election should be admissible evidence even if the Supreme Court rules they cannot be the basis of the charges.
Oral arguments serve a crucial role at the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts said last week at Georgetown University. But they are not always what they seem.
A new legal standard is gaining traction among conservative judges — one that might turn back the clock on drag shows, gun restrictions and more.
On what planet were Trump’s actions a normal response to political defeat?
In arguments on Thursday, the justices appeared to signal two ways they could help Donald Trump as he fights charges that he plotted to overturn the 2020 election.
Readers express concern about how the justices will rule on Donald Trump’s immunity claim. Also: An environmental decision for Alaska; Ralph Nader, on third parties.
Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing was memorable for its discussion of coups, assassinations and internments — but very little about the former president’s conduct.
Plus, Haiti gets a new government.
The former president’s claim that he has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason.
Turning the page on the man — and on the politics he has fostered — will require fundamentally changing the text of our founding document.
But several members of the Supreme Court seem willing to put presidents above the rule of law.
He won the right to services like school and health care for people illegally crossing the border into the U.S. He also fought the Trump administration’s family separation policy.
The justices could issue a ruling that would make a trial in the Jan. 6 case unlikely before the election.
Several justices signaled interest in some protections for official acts, which could impede a swift trial in the federal election subversion case.
Responses to an essay about risks of choking during sex. Also: Abortion and the Supreme Court; Columbia unrest; hiring discrimination; Trump’s “fake news.”
Michael Dreeben, speaking for the government, and D. John Sauer, the lawyer for Donald J. Trump, have played roles in some of the legal battles stemming from his term in office.
Marchers closed down a street calling for the former president to face justice.
The early morning campaign stop exemplifies the balancing act required for a candidate who is also a criminal defendant.
Plus, new airline refund rules.
Such a ruling would probably send the case back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.
A ruling in the emergency abortion case heard at the high court on Wednesday could turn out abortion rights supporters to the polls.
The court’s ruling could extend to at least half a dozen other states that have similarly restrictive bans, and the implications of the case could stretch beyond abortion.
The former president is asking the Supreme Court to put the presidency above criminal law as he pursues a broader agenda of expanding the office’s power should he win the election.
After the justices hear arguments on Thursday, how they decide may be just as important as what they decide.
Plus, clashes over Donald Trump’s gag order.
The justices weighed whether a federal law aimed at protecting access to emergency medical care superseded Idaho’s near-total abortion ban.
The case, which could reverberate beyond Idaho to other states with abortion bans, is the second time in less than a month that the justices have heard an abortion case.
The court’s delay may have stripped citizens of the criminal justice system’s most effective mechanism for determining disputed facts: a trial.
Federal trial judges in Texas and Idaho came to opposite conclusions in a battle between conservative states and the U.S. government over limits on abortion access.
Donald J. Trump’s lawyer was harshly questioned as he tried to avoid a contempt citation. And a publisher testified about how he put The National Enquirer to work for Mr. Trump’s campaign.
The former president’s claim ahead of a pivotal Supreme Court hearing that he was protecting the election system rather than subverting it is part of a pattern of shaping his own reality.
The former president’s claim ahead of a pivotal Supreme Court hearing that he was protecting the election system rather than subverting it is part of a pattern of shaping his own reality.
Readers, including parents of suspended students, discuss the unrest. Also: Responses to Liz Cheney on the Supreme Court and Donald Trump’s immunity claim.
The case seeks to limit the National Labor Relations Board’s ability to obtain court intervention in labor cases.
The plan has been in the works for years, but the passage of a contentious bill by Britain’s Parliament puts the country closer to sending asylum seekers to the African nation.
Will the court go out of its way to disregard statutory language and create ambiguity where none exists?
Britain’s Parliament passed contentious legislation to allow the deportation of asylum seekers to the African country, a political victory for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.
The Supreme Court temporarily revived the regulations in August by a 5-to-4 vote after lower courts blocked them.
As voters’ frustration has grown with sprawling tent encampments in public spaces, Democratic and Republican leaders alike have called for greater authority to ban such camping.
A group of homeless plaintiffs argue that local laws aimed at banning sleeping outside violated their constitutional rights. The city claims that’s not what the Eighth Amendment means.
Plus, a swimming scandal.
A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of courts wading into the thorny policy questions around when local governments can punish people for sleeping and camping outdoors.
If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account.
A ban on camping in public places faces a Supreme Court test.
Here’s how America should build on the end of Roe v. Wade
Can cities make it illegal to live on the streets?
A former Supreme Court justice on how to disagree.
With the issue of abortion rights, the vice president has hit her stride.
The officer, Jatonya Muldrow, said she had been transferred to a less desirable position based on her sex. Lower courts ruled that she had failed to show concrete harm.
The federal indictment of Donald Trump for plotting to overturn the 2020 election relies in part on the law that the Supreme Court weighed on Tuesday, but was built to survive without it.
La decisión del tribunal podría interrumpir los enjuiciamientos de cientos de involucrados en el ataque al Capitolio.
Plus, NASA’s “Hail Mary.”
The justices considered the gravity of the assault and whether prosecutors have been stretching the law to reach members of the mob responsible for the attack.
Federal judges have agreed to release about 10 defendants who were serving prison terms because of their convictions under an obstruction law.
The Idaho attorney general had asked the justices to move swiftly to let the state law, which would ban gender-affirming medical care for minors, go into effect.
The question for the justices was whether a federal law prohibits not only before-the-fact bribes but also after-the-fact rewards.
Readers discuss what’s at stake, the jurors and the possibility of Donald Trump’s testifying. Also: Aid to Ukraine; originalism; thinking rationally.
Three Supreme Court briefs from former military leaders and intelligence officials explore whether presidents may be prosecuted for ordering unlawful killings.
Readers discuss the hobby’s many benefits. Also: Friends in the court; politicians’ health; testing the candidates; banning plastic foam.
The justices will hear arguments on Tuesday in a case that could alter hundreds of prosecutions for the assault on the Capitol and help define its meaning.
What really matters is what the court does or doesn’t do.
The income-driven plan known as SAVE has reduced payments for millions of borrowers. Lawsuits by Republican-led states are seeking to upend it.
Abortion opponents are entirely misaligned with the Trumpist form of conservatism.
Plus, the fight against “deepnudes.”
He landed a major blow against legal abortion during his first term. If given a second, he will land another.
Will the court’s conservatives flinch in the face of two polarizing gun cases?
The filing was the main submission from Jack Smith, the special counsel prosecuting the former president. The case will be argued on April 25.
The former president said he supported leaving abortion decisions to states, but political opponents say he bears responsibility for any curbs enacted.
Plus, a gun rights case at the Supreme Court and WeWork’s bankruptcy filing.
The case is the second one this term asking the justices to decide when government activity crosses the line to become coercion forbidden by the First Amendment.
The legislation would prevent President Biden from issuing another last-minute extension on the payments beyond the end of the summer.
A justice who frequently struggles to see injustice and cruelty in the present will surely struggle to see injustice and cruelty in the past.
The justices acted after the Biden administration announced that the health emergency used to justify the measure, Title 42, was ending.
President Biden has acknowledged that he has not accomplished all he wished to. But that, he maintains, is an argument for his re-election.
Two criminal defendants have asked the Supreme Court to decide whether remote testimony against them violated the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause.
Recent orders suggest that the justices are thinking of dismissing cases involving the “independent state legislature” theory and Title 42, an immigration measure imposed during the pandemic.
The administration faced a conservative court that has insisted that government initiatives with major political and economic consequences be clearly authorized by Congress.
The justices are set to hear arguments on March 1 on whether Republican-led states may seek to keep in place the immigration measure, which was justified by the coronavirus pandemic.
The unanimous ruling was the first one summarized by a justice since the start of the coronavirus pandemic and an indication that the court is off to a slow start this term.
In a brief filed with the justices, the president’s lawyers argued that his administration had acted within its authority in moving to forgive hundreds of billions in student debt.
Readers praise plans for more contemporary works. Also: Zelensky and American values; protecting the minority; remote work; the Groucho exception.
Plans to lift Title 42 have prompted dire predictions of chaos on the border. But there is already a migrant surge, because the pandemic policy was never an effective border-control tool.
For some lawmakers and politicians on both sides of the aisle, brandishing Title 42 is a way to flaunt an aggressive stance on the border.
The temporary stay in lifting the pandemic rule known as Title 42 is a provisional victory for 19 states, led mostly by Republicans, that had sought to keep it in place on the border.
¿Se está acabando el mundo tal como lo conocíamos? ¿Lo sabrías, siquiera, antes de que fuera demasiado tarde?
In 2022, we debated the apocalypse.
At issue is Title 42, a public health measure invoked by the Trump administration during the pandemic to block migrants from seeking asylum in the United States.
The justices left in place an injunction blocking the Biden administration’s authority to forgive up to $20,000 in debt per borrower.
The social network’s new owner wants to cut costs and make money from more aspects of tweeting. But some advertisers and celebrities remain cautious.
The courthouse has been closed to most visitors since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, and in the meantime the court has been transformed.
Readers debate the party’s strategy of supporting far-right G.O.P. candidates it thinks it can beat. Also: Covid and schools; Ukraine’s students; Kansas and abortion.
The House speaker’s visit is reviewed, pro and con. Also: The Kansas abortion vote; OB-GYNs; coal miners; rich and poor friends; single-issue voters.
Plus Xi Jinping visits Hong Kong and Ukraine takes back Snake Island.
Here’s what you need to know at the end of the day.
Readers call for more openness and discuss judicial restraint and the justices’ religious beliefs. Also: Mask decisions; Twitter’s dark side; skipping school.