In late-night guidance, the Agriculture Department also threatened financial penalties against states.
In many states, it remained unclear how the Supreme Court’s Friday night order might immediately affect low-income residents.
The birds, exposed to the avian flu, were killed after Canada’s Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal and a rescue effort by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fell short.
The justices are generally reluctant to take account of a president’s public statements. But extensive quotes from Mr. Trump in a key filing may change the legal calculus.
Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk once jailed for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, has asked the court to reconsider its landmark 2015 opinion.
And it defeats the basic purpose of the document.
President Trump has endured major setbacks at the ballot box, at the Supreme Court and in Congress.
If you have followed coverage of the history-making New York City mayoral election, here’s a chance to check your knowledge.
A lower court judge had temporarily blocked the administration’s policy requiring that passports reflect sex as found on an original birth certificate.
A lively argument spanning almost three hours featured illuminating exchanges that tested the usual commitments of some of the justices on the right side of the court.
In arguments before the Supreme Court, the White House backed away from its claims that President Trump’s tariffs were about raising revenue.
A federal judge must now determine whether President Trump’s immunity for official acts means that his Manhattan criminal case belongs in federal court.
Businesses and investors are bracing for uncertainty after Supreme Court justices questioned the legality of a core part of the president’s trade policy.
The justices are considering the legality of using a 1977 emergency statute to impose charges on scores of countries.
Plus, using A.I. to find a date.
President Trump has used his sweeping global tariffs as an economic tool and a political cudgel. A decision invalidating them could hamper his power.
Where is the line between authority and authoritarianism?
The problem with giving any president basically unconstrained authority to raise revenue via tariffs.
The Supreme Court justices grappled with the legality of President Trump’s tariffs in an oral argument that stretched for almost three hours.
First, Texas redistricted. Other states followed, and now California. Some legal experts say it’s a crisis: “The wheels are coming off the car right now.”
The groups challenging the president’s tariffs assert that the measures overstep the principle that Congress cannot cede its legislative powers to other branches of government.
The Supreme Court used the doctrine, which requires Congress to speak clearly to confer vast economic power, to strike down several Biden administration programs.
As Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, D. John Sauer laid out an expansive vision of presidential power. Now the solicitor general, he will offer a new broad view of the president’s authority.
Neal Katyal, who has argued over 50 cases before the court, represents a group of businesses. Benjamin Gutman, Oregon’s solicitor general, represents a coalition of states and is making his first appearance.
Many of the president’s tariffs rest on the legal claim that the gap between what America imports and exports is a national emergency, an idea that remains contentious.
The Supreme Court is set to consider the legality of tariffs the president has invoked emergency powers to place on many trading partners.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments about presidential power to impose tariffs. But what are they?
President Trump has transformed U.S. trade policy. Here's how much of his tariff agenda is under threat at the Supreme Court.
Justices will hear arguments on Wednesday over whether the president acted legally when he used a 1977 emergency statute to unilaterally impose tariffs.
The Trump administration says it has plenty of other options to impose tariffs, if the court rules against the president.
Donald J. Trump and Dick Cheney became adversaries, but the former vice president set the stage for Mr. Trump’s bid to expand his executive authority.
The justices grappled with a case involving a lawsuit by a Texas couple who claimed toxins in baby food had sickened their son.
Readers respond to a guest essay about the continuing vitality of literary fiction. Also: Exxon vs. California; a Supreme Court split on tactics.
Companies that sell diamonds, plant sensors and wine all have one thing in common: They are weighing in against tariffs in a consequential case.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dismissed the idea that his presence could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the court on a case that President Trump considers vital to his economic policy.
Plus, killer whales versus great whites.
Plus, killer whales versus great whites.
The Liberty Justice Center led by Sara Albrecht is better known for backing right-leaning causes, but it filed the tariff case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this week.
The Trump tariffs case is before the court this week.
President Trump has a lot riding on the results of Tuesday’s elections, his tariffs case at the Supreme Court and the future of the government shutdown.
Lo que está en juego es la legalidad de la política económica emblemática de Trump: el uso de poderes de emergencia para imponer aranceles generalizados.
The lawsuit stemmed from a 2016 suicide attack in Afghanistan by a former Taliban member hired as a subcontractor on an American military base.
A key part of the president’s trade policy faces scrutiny by the Supreme Court this week, with huge implications for business.
The justices face so-called legitimacy dilemma as they deal with a tricky legal dispute and a president who has made clear he would view defeat as a personal insult.
For decades, the United States has clashed over two stories of nationhood.
One lawsuit, underway since February, has sought to compel President Trump to honor Congress’s vision for foreign aid. It still has a long way to go.
We go inside their strained relationship.
Why liberals need a plan and promise to make Congress great again.
Outnumbered and facing vast stakes, Justices Kagan and Jackson are split over the best approach: investing in diplomacy inside the court or sounding the alarm outside.
Mass demonstrations are planned in Jerusalem on Thursday against efforts to end a decades-old exemption from military service for Israel’s Haredi religious students.
The U.S. has long believed that unspecific laws threaten democracy. So why is the administration being so vague?
President Trump has ordered troops to Portland, Ore., Los Angeles, Washington and Chicago over the objections of state and local officials.
In 2024, a jury found that Donald J. Trump approved a scheme to falsify business records to conceal a hush-money payment to a porn star. He became the first felon president.
La campaña del gobierno de Trump contra la migración ilegal se ha convertido en una ofensiva de discriminación.
An appeals court sided with the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, saying her role is to work with Congress.
The justices used the doctrine, a judicially created method of reading statutes, to thwart several major Biden programs.
Trump’s immigration tactics violate both the law and human decency.
The Times editorial board critiques the Supreme Court’s overuse of the emergency docket to deliver consequential decisions without explaining its reasoning.
For decades, federal officers have had to rely on more than race or ethnicity to stop and question someone over citizenship. That is now being tested.
Hoy en día, hablar español en voz alta en Estados Unidos se siente, extrañamente, como un acto transgresor.
The administration says the ruling, stemming from the seizure of an old mare, forbids judges from second-guessing his use of the National Guard.
Plus, a drastic drop in peanut allergies.
A Supreme Court ruling, while technically temporary, could set the ground rules for National Guard deployments elsewhere in the country.
The Second Amendment case tests a federal law used to convict Hunter Biden that bars drug users and addicts from possessing guns.
Half a century ago, Congress protected its power of the purse, and conservatives balked at letting presidents disobey lawmakers’ instructions.
The conviction of Pedro Hernandez in the 1979 murder of the 6-year-old was vacated. The Manhattan district attorney is exploring whether to try him again.
The office that administers the federal court system said that as of Monday, the judiciary will not have funding to sustain “full, paid operations.”
The president has mobilized state-based military forces to U.S. cities over the objections of state and local officials.
What do we expect from the Supreme Court and what can it actually do? On “Interesting Times,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Ross Douthat discuss how the court makes decisions, with an eye toward the future, rather than focusing on the moment we live in right now.
Abortion isn’t a right protected by the Constitution nor is it deeply rooted in the country’s history. Justice Amy Coney Barrett describes how the Supreme Court’s majority came to that conclusion on this week’s episode of “Interesting Times.” She tells Ross Douthat the tools she uses to interpret the law.
A movement born in churches to help vulnerable immigrants has become a constitutional battleground in Chicago and Portland, Ore.
Trump’s crypto windfall represents a mixing of personal and government interests at an unprecedented scale.
After the Supreme Court appeared poised to weaken a key provision of the landmark civil rights law, both parties began to reckon with an uncertain future.
The Supreme Court justice isn’t making decisions based on public opinion.
Thousands of hostages are still awaiting freedom.
A prohibition on the use of race in drawing electoral districts could allow states to redraw legislative lines before voting begins next year.
Democrats would be in danger of losing around a dozen majority-minority districts across the South if the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.
While the 1965 law was adopted in response to discriminatory practices in southern states, it has affected states and localities nationwide.
Montana is defending the actions of law enforcement officers who did not have a warrant when they responded to a possibly suicidal Army veteran.
If the justices decide that lawmakers cannot consider race in drafting maps, redistricting could result in congressional seats flipping from blue to red throughout the country.
The district attorney is searching for witnesses and plans to ask the Supreme Court to consider the Etan Patz case. A defense lawyer for the man accused in the killing says they’re dawdling.
Mr. Jones was ordered to pay $1.4 billion in damages to families who lost children in the 2012 shooting in Newtown, Conn.
The justices have shown a willingness to chip away at the landmark civil rights legislation. A Louisiana case could unravel much of its remaining power.
As the Supreme Court seems poised to expand the president’s power, a leading scholar whose work the justices have often cited issued a provocative dissent.
There is little information in court filings about the dozen plaintiffs who challenged the state’s voting map as an illegal racial gerrymander.
Dozens of sitting judges shared with The Times their concerns about risks to the courts’ legitimacy as the Supreme Court releases opaque orders about Trump administration policies.
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.