The Supreme Court’s decision on sports betting could reshape reporting on sports, business and New Jersey for years to come.
We’re talking about real money.
The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s more conservative justices in the majority. The court’s decision could affect some 25 million employment contracts.
Employees who are underpaid, harassed or discriminated against have been left to press their cases alone in arbitration.
As state governments develop plans to introduce sports betting, some American Indian tribes in the casino business are working to make sure they’re dealt in.
The justices also decided that drivers of rented cars not listed on the rental agreements do not lose their constitutional right to privacy.
The case concerned New Jersey, but it has implications for other states eager to allow and tax sports gambling. Americans are estimated to annually place $150 billion in illegal wagers on sports.
Though a Supreme Court decision Monday handed a victory to New Jersey, it may be a while before bets can be placed there — or elsewhere.
In 1979, an appeals court judge named Anthony Kennedy ruled that prisoners have a right to a little fresh air. Now he and his fellow justices could decide a similar case.
Louisiana has a chance to get rid of a racist 19th-century rule that allows nonunanimous juries to convict.
We’ll soon find out as the justices prepare to rule on the travel ban and a baker who refused to accommodate a same-sex wedding.
The star of the documentary “RBG” has embraced her popularity as another tool in her effort to help women advance.
India’s Supreme Court on Wednesday reprimanded the Archaeological Survey of India for failing to protect the Taj Mahal from dirty feet and insects.
How Ruth Bader Ginsburg became the second woman named to the Supreme Court and the first justice to become a pop-culture phenomenon.
The founding of Demand Justice, which aims to persuade liberals to approach judicial fights with the same passion as conservatives, comes as President Trump is focused on remaking the federal courts.
If Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, signs the bill, it is sure to trigger a court battle. Supporters want to see it reach the Supreme Court.
They leave little doubt that the president is in serious jeopardy, particularly regarding obstruction of justice.
The statement appeared to undercut an argument that Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco made before the Supreme Court, one that the Justice Department now says included a factual error.
Among the newly accepted cases is an appeal from a death row inmate with a rare medical condition he says will cause excruciating pain if he is given a lethal injection.
Twitter users have created a hashtag to mock the newest Supreme Court justice’s prose, but an algorithm-driven study found it pleasingly informal and accessible.
Your departure right now from the Supreme Court would have dire consequences for the country.
The battle between the White House and blue states raises questions about the limits of federal authority.
Developments on the president’s travel ban and efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program signal that he could find a new way to counter the legal resistance to his crackdown.
In considering the restrictions, the justices seem focused on one question: Should the president’s authority have anything to do with his personal beliefs?
Was President Trump’s travel ban too broad? Did it amount to a ‘Muslim ban’? Is it the courts’ place to second-guess the president? This and other questions were among those that the Supreme Court contended with.
By the end of the argument, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed ready to defer to the president’s national security judgments and discount his campaign promises to impose a “Muslim ban.”
A recent ruling reinforced a message that it’s not enough to show that conduct may have had some tangential impact on a case like the investigation of Russian influence in the 2016 election.
The court heard arguments in a long and winding case about whether congressional and state legislative districts were drawn to discriminate.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said such suits should require explicit congressional authorization, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor countering that the court had created a double standard for corporations.
The justices ruled that the proceedings, which opponents say usurp the role of the federal courts, were a permissible way for the agency that administers patents to fix its mistakes.
A decision by the state’s Supreme Court barring church use of county grants for historic preservation could have national ramifications.
President Trump violated the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution with his ban.