The Supreme Court has narrowed the legal definition of corruption, with political figures in New York and elsewhere having their convictions overturned as a result.
Responses to a column by Bret Stephens. Also: Pharmacy benefit managers; the Supreme Court; a potential second Trump term and the environment.
Mr. Biden’s legal team pointed to a decision by a federal judge in Florida, who ruled that the special counsel in Mr. Trump’s case, Jack Smith, had been unconstitutionally appointed.
For his convention speech, Donald Trump faces a new, more promising rhetorical and political situation.
Judge Aileen Cannon’s move to throw out the case against former President Donald J. Trump could have far-reaching implications.
The effort to hold Donald Trump to account has already yielded a Supreme Court decision giving former presidents broad immunity. Now another case could make prosecuting political figures more complicated.
The proposals include term limits for the justices and an enforceable code of ethics. But they would need congressional approval, which is a long shot.
Readers strongly disagree with Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision.
If Donald Trump returns to the White House, he would likely face fewer legal and bureaucratic obstacles to dramatically remake the E.P.A.
Eight federal judges have rejected the claim that Judge Aileen Cannon has now endorsed that no law authorizes the appointment of a special counsel.
Her decision rejected what the Supreme Court said in its landmark ruling in 1974.
Responses to the assassination attempt against the former president. Also: Abortion and the Supreme Court; children’s online behavior; body image; driving apps.
It is a social form of sclerosis that will persist unless and until more power is transferred from the wrinkled to the rest.
He provided the research and drafts that helped bring about the Supreme Court’s landmark Gideon v. Wainwright decision in 1963.
He is closer than ever to a second term, but what that would bring remains unclear.
A contempt for compromise. An expansive vision of executive power. Both owe much to Carl Schmitt.
The Supreme Court decided last month that cities could cite homeless campers. Some say ‘clear them all.’ Others are ramping up outreach.
A ruling by Pakistan’s top court strips the governing coalition of its two-thirds majority, and thrusts the party of Imran Khan back onto the political main stage.
The chief justice and his allies have rewritten the Constitution to make it say what they want it to say.
But the conservative justices can’t distance themselves from the significant damage they have caused.
A recent Supreme Court ruling should nullify the guilty verdict in Donald Trump’s Manhattan trial, his lawyers said. The argument could be a long shot.
As Donald Trump heads to the Republican convention, his criminal cases look a lot less threatening.
Reflections on the remarkable end to the Supreme Court term.
The vice president told a crowd of roughly 20,000 in Dallas that former President Donald J. Trump had said he would terminate the Constitution in a second term.
For decades, the court has been reluctant to allow lawsuits against individual federal officials. Donald Trump’s fixer-turned-nemesis believes he has found an exception.
Impeachment has no realistic chance of advancing in the Republican-controlled House, but it speaks to a motivating issue for Democrats: the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.
In the case of the former president, it is far more dangerous to underestimate than to overestimate his capacity to wreak havoc.
The marshal was sitting in an unmarked federal vehicle near the Supreme Court justice’s home when a man approached the vehicle and pointed a handgun at him through the driver’s side window.
The senators said the Supreme Court justice’s failure to disclose lavish gifts and luxury travel showed a “willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws.”
Legal maneuverings followed a Supreme Court ruling last month that denied the Sackler family immunity from liability over its role in the opioid crisis.
Readers lament and support the president’s refusal to heed calls to step aside. Also: Televised therapy; Supreme Court rulings.
The Supreme Court decision granting former presidents broad protection from prosecution kicked to the trial court key rulings about how much of Donald Trump’s indictment on election charges can stand.
He is gravitating toward the extreme fringes of the conservative legal world.
The junior member of the court’s six-justice conservative supermajority often questioned its approach and wrote important dissents joined by liberal justices.
Some of the rulings that came before the justices’ decision on presidential immunity could prove to have just as big an impact.
After President Biden’s rocky answer on abortion at the debate, his campaign has ramped up its messaging on Donald Trump’s role in overturning Roe v. Wade and his policy stances.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett has found her voice.
In both Trump cases the liberal dissenters are more originalist than the conservative majority.
The postponement was likely to cause only minor delays to the case, which has already slowed to a crawl with Judge Aileen Cannon’s previous decisions.
The American republic feels fragile.
The former president’s lawyers asked to freeze nearly all proceedings while they sort out whether the Supreme Court decision applies to charges focused on actions after he left the White House.
Most of the court’s decisions were principled and sound — most, but unfortunately not all.
Aunque los gobernantes gozan de inmunidad limitada mientras ocupan el cargo en países como Japón y Australia, no existe nada similar a las amplias protecciones que la corte parece haber concedido en su fallo.
El tribunal declaró que los expresidentes tienen inmunidad por sus acciones oficiales. Este fallo revela cómo los jueces conservadores ven el poder del líder de la nación.
Impeachments, bankruptcies, fraud judgments, felonies. Nothing sticks. Nothing matters.
Christian nationalists aim to impose their beliefs on others.
Blockbuster decisions by the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed supermajority — expanding one kind of executive branch authority while undercutting another — were no contradiction.
The Supreme Court has had a volatile term, taking on a stunning array of major disputes and assuming a commanding role in shaping American society and democracy. Adam Liptak and Abbie VanSickle, supreme court reporters at The New York Times, expla...
Legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court ruling pushes past most of the norms in effect among American allies, adding more concern about the reliability of U.S. power.
The court dismisses an abortion case it now says it should never have accepted, opening a window on internal tensions.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority largely embraced Donald Trump’s dark view of tit-for-tat partisan prosecutions while liberals cited the prospect of power unchecked by legal accountability.
For Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, sweeping anti-regulatory rulings are the big payoff of their drive to reshape the federal courts.
Más allá de Donald Trump, la decisión se suma a la expansión aparentemente unidireccional de la autoridad ejecutiva.
Analistas y observadores ya preveían, a grandes rasgos, la decisión que establece que los presidentes merecen protección considerable por sus actos oficiales. Trump lo proclamó como una victoria.
Determining which of the alleged acts that Donald Trump is being prosecuted for in the state were official conduct, and which were not, could delay the case for months.
Three justices dissented in the case, which could affect more than two dozen youths sentenced to die in prison.
The Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents immunity from prosecution over official actions is an extraordinary expansion of executive power. Charlie Savage, a reporter for The New York Times, analyzes the ruling by the court’s conservative m...
Lawyers and other readers discuss the landmark Supreme Court decision. Also: A ruling on corruption; doctors and abortion bans; religion in public schools.
The court, which issued two major decisions on guns in the term that ended Monday, does not seem ready to return to the subject.
Liberal outlets criticized the ruling as a biased move from a conservative Supreme Court. Conservative commentators admonished Democrats for opposing it.
Donald J. Trump’s lawyers want to argue that a Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity for official acts should void his felony conviction for covering up hush money paid to a porn star.
Amid signs of dysfunction and disarray, Chief Justice John Roberts reasserted his authority, while the influence of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito waned.
What the Supreme Court’s ruling means for Donald Trump, and how it may reshape presidential power for years to come.
What the Supreme Court decision means for the former president, and for the presidency itself.
Presidential immunity never existed in America. Until now.
It is increasingly clear that this court sees itself as something other than a participant in our democratic system.
The Nixonian theory of presidential power is now enshrined as constitutional law.
Big Tech is increasingly safe from government regulation.
El principio básico de que los presidentes no están por encima de la ley se ha dejado de lado, lo que se traduce en un paso hacia la monarquía
Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority.
President Biden spoke after the Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.
In his concurrence to the immunity decision, the justice questioned whether there was a legal basis for naming the special counsel — a topic also being explored by the judge in the documents case.
The decision most likely delays Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 case past the election, and if he wins in November, people close to him expect the Justice Department to drop the charges.
The president, under scrutiny since his damaging debate appearance last week, did not stumble or falter during his brief remarks.
In a step toward monarchy, the bedrock principle that presidents are not above the law has been set aside.
The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive — a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day.
An evidentiary hearing in federal court could lay out previously undisclosed information.
Key excerpts from the decision reveal how the court’s conservative majority views the power of the nation’s leader.
El tribunal determinó que el expresidente tiene presunta inmunidad en sus conductas oficiales, y que toca a los tribunales de primera instancia distinguirlas de las no oficiales.
Former President Donald J. Trump took the action hours after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling granted him immunity for official acts committed in office.
Instead of delivering a judgment many months ago and allowing the trial to proceed, the justices gave Trump the gift of delay piled upon delay.
Readers discuss some of the major decisions at the end of the court’s term.
The final day of the current Supreme Court term included some of the most eagerly awaited decisions.
The three Democratic appointees railed against the ruling that former President Donald J. Trump has some immunity for his official actions, declaring that their colleagues had made the president into “a king above the law.”
The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen. In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power.
The justices unanimously returned two cases, which concerned state laws that supporters said were aimed at “Silicon Valley censorship,” to lower courts. Critics had said the laws violated the sites’ First Amendment rights.
The ruling could amplify the impact of a separate decision overturning the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of statutes.
Plus, Hurricane Beryl threatens the Caribbean.
Americans are owed better from the Democratic Party.
Rarely has a case had less legal meaning and greater moral weight.
The court swept aside a precedent that endangers countless regulations — and transfers power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts.
A second Biden term would be unusually dangerous for the country in a very significant way.
Four cases backed by conservative activists in recent years have combined to diminish the power of the Environmental Protection Agency.
In finding that prosecutors misused an obstruction law to charge rioters, the justices highlighted the lack of an established legal blueprint for addressing an attack on the foundations of democracy.
In states that have banned abortion, hospitals have struggled to treat pregnant women facing health risks. A Supreme Court decision this week did not help.
The Bible has a deep history in American classrooms, but the state’s provocative superintendent wants to broadly expand its influence.
Two rulings this week by the Republican-appointed majority add to its steady pursuit of enfeebling the ability of the administrative state to impose rules on powerful business interests.
Stephen Bannon will have to begin serving four months in prison on Monday, after the court turned aside his request to remain free while he appeals his conviction for contempt of Congress.
The combination of President Biden’s debate performance and adverse Supreme Court rulings left Democrats reeling and in despair with elections not far off.
Successive successes reinvigorated Donald Trump’s campaign a month after he became the first major party nominee convicted of a felony.
Everyone in our system, including judges and members of Congress, will be nudged to do their proper constitutional work.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made it easier to sue agencies and get their rules struck down.
The decision overturning a longstanding precedent is likely to spawn challenges to dozens of tax regulations.
The decision overturning a precedent known as Chevron deference was celebrated by those who would target medication abortion and rights for transgender people.
Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices’ wives raised serious questions about their impartiality.
Challenges could range from whether tainted spinach can be traced back to a farm to a decision on whether drugs are safe and effective enough to be sold in the United States.
The decision is expected to prompt a rush of litigation challenging regulations across the entire federal government, from food safety to the environment.
The ruling that the Justice Department misused a 2002 law in charging a pro-Trump rioter who entered the Capitol could have an impact on hundreds of other cases, including one against Donald Trump.
A foundational 1984 decision had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.
The case is likely to have broad ramifications for how cities across the country respond to homelessness.
The court’s strategy of avoidance and delay cannot last and may have been shaped by a desire to avoid controversy in an election year.
El caso, uno de varios que se centran en cómo se aplica la Primera Enmienda a las plataformas tecnológicas, fue desestimado porque los demandantes carecían de pruebas para legitimar sus reclamos.
The Trumpist right is presenting aggressive legal theories that fail again and again.
A reporter observed a day of messages to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. She does not know the callers’ names, but she’ll never forget their stories.
It’s a busy time for a reporter on the Supreme Court beat, with momentous decisions coming down one after another.
Half of the water flowing through regional river basins starts in so-called ephemeral streams. Last year, the Supreme Court curtailed federal protections for these waterways.
We scrutinized the presidential candidates’ recent claims on abortion, health care, crime and climate change ahead of the debate.
Plaintiffs and the company vowed to renegotiate but the talks will be challenging after the court struck down a provision the Sacklers had insisted on in exchange for $6 billion.
A majority of the justices voted to dismiss the case, reinstating a lower-court ruling that paused the state’s near-total abortion ban. The ruling mirrored a version inadvertently posted a day earlier.
Common in executive agencies, such tribunals hear enforcement actions without juries — a practice the court’s conservative supermajority said violated the Constitution.
The justices rejected a bankruptcy settlement maneuver that would have protected members of the Sackler family from civil claims related to the opioid epidemic.
Three states challenged the administration’s “good neighbor” plan, meant to protect downwind states from harmful emissions.
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.