Según sus funcionarios, esta medida es parte de un plan de consolidación que reducirá el exceso burocrático.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s plan to downsize a “bloated” department had been on hold after a court ruling.
In the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the administration appears primarily concerned with ensuring that a man it has described as a “dangerous illegal alien” never walks free on U.S. soil.
The president signaled he would seek to use the threat of steep levies to reorient trade and protect his political allies.
At a bar association event in Indiana, the justice told those gathered that she is focused on drawing attention to what is happening to the government.
Readers discuss Justice Jackson’s role on the Supreme Court. Also: Church endorsements of candidates; Voice of America, silenced.
The law, enacted this year, made it a crime for unauthorized migrants to enter the state. Challengers say immigration is a federal matter.
Readers respond to a guest essay by Dr. Allen Frances. Also: A Supreme Court decision on firing federal workers.
The justices announced they were not ruling on the legality of the specific downsizing plans but they allowed the Trump administration to proceed for now with its restructuring efforts.
The plan directly contradicted the White House, which last month described as “fake news” reports of plans to re-deport Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.
The document from El Salvador seems to undermine a position that lawyers for the Justice Department and top Trump officials have taken time and again in front of a judge in Washington.
The court’s rules require many litigants to submit 40 copies of their briefs, resulting in millions of pages printed each term. Critics call the process outdated and wasteful.
Porn platforms just got what they deserved at the Supreme Court.
Courts blocked the handover after lawyers raised concerns of torture. Then the Supreme Court intervened to allow the Trump administration’s plan to move forward.
In solo dissents this term, the justice accused the conservative majority of lawless bias. On the term’s last day, Justice Amy Coney Barrett fired back.
La orden de la corte siguió a otra más amplia del mes pasado que permitía las expulsiones a países con los que los migrantes no tienen conexiones.
In purporting to license otherwise illegal conduct by tech firms, President Trump set a precedent expanding executive power, legal experts warned.
The court’s order followed a broader one last month allowing removals to countries with which migrants have no connections.
The ruling cited a Supreme Court decision in May that allowed President Trump to sideline Democratic appointees from several other nonpartisan agencies.
The court announced it would hear challenges to state laws barring transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports.
Grading how the Supreme Court has done so far in Trump 2.0.
In an interim ruling in a similar case in May, the Supreme Court ruled that the president court terminate leaders of two other independent agencies.
The Planned Parenthood case was about much more than abortion.
A recent Supreme Court ruling could allow President Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship to go into effect in some states. Abbie VanSickle, a reporter covering the United States Supreme Court for The New York Times, explains how the decision also upends the power of federal judges to freeze policies for the entire country.
A Supreme Court decision demonstrates a new degree of cimperiousness, seeming to co-sign the Trump administration’s contempt for the lower courts.
The New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak recaps this Supreme Court term, which was defined by a disproportionate amount of emergency docket cases. Liptak explains why these cases tended to go in the Trump administration’s favor.
The case is likely to be the first to reach the Supreme Court on the substantive issue of the president’s invocation of a rarely used wartime law.
A Supreme Court decision limiting the ability of judges to issue nationwide injunctions blocking Trump orders left open the possibility of class-action lawsuits to do the same. Here’s how.
Readers react to the Supreme Court decision on nationwide injunctions. Also: A resignation at the University of Virginia; remembering Dachau.
The case involves a challenge to federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates.
How a major ruling last week redefines the role of the courts — at a moment when President Trump is testing the limits of his powers.
Plus, the tricky science behind lime green Jell-O.
Amir Ali became a federal judge just weeks before Trump took office. It’s been tumultuous ever since.
La decisión dejó sin respuesta si los hijos nacidos de migrantes sin estatus legal en Estados Unidos tienen derecho a la ciudadanía automática.
Unas leyes vagas y radicales para frenar el contenido sexual en línea podrían censurar a quien quiera compartir información sobre el placer y la salud sexual.
The case before one of the most conservative courts in the country is likely to be the first to reach the Supreme Court.
At a conference with federal judges, the chief justice did not mention the court’s decision sharply limiting their power, focusing instead on the danger of threats to the judiciary.
The justices’ strange about-face has a source.
How the court reaffirmed the proper role of the federal courts within our constitutional system.
The court tied the hands of judges at a time when Congress has been cowed and internal executive branch constraints have been steamrolled.
The Supreme Court has set a new, higher bar for judges seeking to block Trump administration policies nationwide. But some legal routes remain open.
Ten years after their Supreme Court win, some veterans of the marriage equality battles see a shared struggle for transgender rights.
Using truncated procedures, the six-justice conservative majority gave a green light to many of the president’s most assertive initiatives.
The ruling left unsettled the question of whether children born to immigrants without full legal status in the United States are entitled to automatic citizenship. So what happens now?
The practical effect of Friday’s decision is that birthright citizenship would end in the 28 states that have not challenged the president’s order.
The Supreme Court’s conservative bloc reduced the power of district court judges to block government actions nationwide.
The justices asked that the case, which has implications for the political power of Black voters, be reargued next term.
The court didn’t rule on the legality of Trump’s order, but it didn’t have to.
And an internet without it is one that offers a pale shadow of human potential and possibility.
The justices seldom hear arguments in cases on their emergency docket, and they rarely hold special argument sessions. And they usually know the precise question before them.
The Supreme Court has imposed new limits on the power of district-court judges. Here’s what that means for the Trump administration.
La orden entrará en vigor dentro de 30 días. Los jueces no abordaron la constitucionalidad subyacente de la orden presidencial de restringir la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento en EE. UU.
The law, meant to shield minors from sexual materials on the internet by requiring adults to prove they are at least 18, was challenged on First Amendment grounds.
The case stemmed from a lawsuit brought by conservatives seeking to block free preventive care, including medicine to prevent H.I.V. transmission.
Maryland parents have a religious right to withdraw their children from classes on days that stories with gay and transgender themes are discussed, the court ruled.
The ruling clears a major hurdle to President Trump’s agenda and could reshape American citizenship, at least temporarily, as lower court challenges proceed.
The dispute before the court was prompted by an order President Trump signed on his first day back in the White House.
Plus, the Friday news quiz.
For nearly 15 years, a man on death row in Texas has sought DNA testing to try and prove he did not kill an 85-year-old woman.
The question for the justices was whether Medicaid beneficiaries may sue to receive services under a law that lets them choose any qualified provider.
On the 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationally, supporters say they are secure but also wary and watchful.
A decade after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, we asked people from across the country to share stories of what the ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges has meant to them.
Adam Liptak describes the moment in which same-sex marriage became legal nationwide on June 26, 2015 — and what the future may hold for the Supreme Court’s ruling.
After the justices let the administration deport migrants to countries with which they had no connection, a federal judge blocked the removal of eight men.
Plus, Florida’s new “Alligator Alcatraz” for migrants.
The ruling applies immediately to a group of men the government has sought to send to South Sudan.
Damon Landor, whose faith requires him to let his hair grow long, said guards threw a court ruling in the trash before holding him down and shaving his head to the scalp.
Hugo Aguilar Ortiz grew up in a remote Mixtec-speaking village. He is now one of the most powerful lawyers in Mexico.
Hugo Aguilar Ortiz se ha convertido en una de las figuras indígenas más visibles de México y en un símbolo de la reestructuración del poder judicial impulsada por el partido gobernante en el país.
In an unusual request, two toy manufacturers had asked the court to greatly expedite their case.
In a tangled decision, the justices ruled against a disabled firefighter who sued her former employer for refusing her health benefits after she had retired.
The 7-to-2 decision stressed that it did not address the merits of the dispute, and concerned only whether the producers had standing to sue.
The justices ruled that a Tennessee law did not violate equal protection principles, a bitter setback for transgender rights proponents.
In its biggest ruling of the term, the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Tennessee law that prohibits some medical treatments for transgender youths, shielding similar laws in more than 20 other states. Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, describes the three factions of justices in the 6-to-3 decision.
TikTok executives hosted happy hours and played pickleball with influencers on the French Riviera this week, even as a U.S. ban loomed over the company.
The retrenchment on transgender rights is fueled by fear: fear of the future, fear of unfamiliar concepts, fear of not knowing one’s child.
The Supreme Court decision upholding a Tennessee ban on gender transition care for trans youths means a state-by-state patchwork of policies will remain.
A Times examination shows how a landmark case about gender-affirming care for minors was built on flawed politics and uncertain science.
As parents, we know better than state officials what our child needs.
While some in the party denounced the Supreme Court’s decision, other top leaders remained quiet, underscoring the party’s discomfort on the issue.
The decision to uphold the Tennessee law will most likely mean a patchwork of laws throughout the country, a map that traces current political polarization.
In 2020, the justices ruled 6-3 that gay and transgender workers were shielded from employment discrimination nationwide.
The Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on transgender care for minors.
Transgender minors and their parents, guardians and doctors have challenged bans in 19 states, with mixed results.
The Supreme Court cited the uncertainty in the scientific evidence.
Justice Sotomayor also read her dissent from the bench, a move typically reserved to emphasize a justice’s extreme displeasure with a decision.
The Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s ban on transgender care for minors
Annual financial disclosures revealed some of the perks of being on the Supreme Court, including international teaching and book sales.
Two toy manufacturers asked the court to greatly expedite their case, in an unusual request.
The question for the justices is whether the centers may pursue a First Amendment challenge to a state subpoena seeking donor information in federal court.
The handful of notable firms that were targeted by the president for punishment but chose to fight have uniformly won. Nine others have nonetheless pledged almost $1 billion in free legal work.
He notched a victory in a Supreme Court decision against the City of Chicago in 1976. He then spent over 40 years making sure the ruling was enforced.
President Trump appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to clinch a conservative legal revolution. But soon after arriving at the Supreme Court, she began surprising her colleagues.
President Trump appointed her to clinch a conservative legal revolution. But soon after arriving at the Supreme Court, she began surprising her colleagues.
Off the bench, the Supreme Court justice has discussed her judicial and personal philosophies, having a son with Down syndrome and running away from television trucks in high heels.
Denying the Justice Department’s request to detain the deportee would be a significant rebuke of the Trump administration, which has repeatedly cast him as a dangerous criminal.
Disability rights groups had followed the case closely, warning that arguments by the school district could threaten broader protections for people with disabilities.
Lower courts ruled in favor of agents who had used a battering ram and a flash-bang grenade in mistakenly raiding the home of a Georgia couple.
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.