The Supreme Court has indicated that there are distinctive reasons to shield the Federal Reserve from political interference.
The court’s order was fractured, with the justices splitting over whether individual cancellations and the policy behind them could be challenged in a federal trial court.
An amendment that can help save our democracy.
It is going to be up to states, the courts and ultimately the American people to stop the president’s attempt to further erode American democracy.
It was the second time that Mr. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have sought to hold the Trump administration accountable over its handling of his expulsion to El Salvador and its aftermath.
A trade group representing sites like Facebook and X said the law ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority kicked away the best, even last, chance at a national solution to a national problem.
The president has crowed about the billions of dollars collected so far from tariffs. That money could be at risk if the White House loses the legal battle.
In cities across the country, the feral animals are both loved and feared. The judges are forging into intensely emotional territory by going after the ones in the capital.
A group that represents students sued the military academies over their consideration of race in admissions but dropped its case after the Trump administration rejected diversity initiatives.
Adam Liptak, a New York Times reporter covering the Supreme Court, explains a recent decision by the court on gerrymandering. He spells out how the justices may be poised to eliminate the remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act.
The justices, having effectively blessed partisan gerrymandering, may be poised to eliminate the remaining pillar of the Voting Rights Act.
What if the infamous case had been decided correctly?
Judge James C. Ho has recast the role of jurist as a vociferous combatant in the culture wars. Could that be exactly what Trump is looking for?
Alvin L. Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, is asking for more time to decide whether to seek a review of the overturned murder conviction of Pedro Hernandez in the Etan Patz case.
A lower court had ordered agents not to make indiscriminate stops relying on factors like race or speaking Spanish.
Readers respond to an article about men, women and “mankeeping.” Also: The Supreme Court; separating migrant families.
The administration has become increasingly focused on admissions data in its effort to bring the higher education system in line with President Trump’s political agenda.
The Supreme Court may extinguish a law that more than any other made the promise of American democracy a reality.
The country is the latest African nation to agree to take in migrants from the United States.
Its six-member conservative majority has become a key enabler of Trump’s agenda.
Spikes in the number and influence of briefs filed by historians have prompted questions about the role scholars should play in litigation.
The Washington Litigation Group is the latest nonprofit group to join the legal challenges against the president, with a strategy of focusing on appeals early in the case.
Speaking at a judicial conference, the justice said that saying too much risked premature judgments, adding that the court had been trying various approaches.
The defiance is coming from inside the judicial branch itself.
The guidance protects employees and supervisors seeking to recruit fellow federal workers to their religion. The Clinton White House issued similar guidelines in 1997, though with more caveats.
When the court fails to make rulings clear, confusion can set in, and the justices’ credibility can suffer.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who serves as the institution’s chancellor, has always emphasized procedure and avoided politics. This moment could make that more difficult.
A district court judge declared some of the administration’s cuts ‘void and illegal.’
The justices paused a lower court order pending a decision on whether the Supreme Court will take up the case, a major challenge to the Voting Rights Act.
In remarks before judges and lawyers in California, the justice said she believed the court had a responsibility to share its reasoning.
Even as top Justice Department officials brokered an interview with a longtime associate of Jeffrey Epstein’s, they asked the Supreme Court to reject her appeal.
The justice talks about everything from his indictment of the regulatory state to the rights of Native Americans.
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.