But the court said it would hear arguments on Nov. 1 on challenges to the law from the Biden administration and abortion providers in the state.
Two of the justices want to revisit a landmark decision for free expression. They may soon get the chance.
The Biden administration had asked the court to block the law. State officials called the request procedurally flawed, saying the court was powerless to grant it.
Public attitudes have hardly changed since Roe v. Wade was decided nearly 50 years ago.
The unsigned decisions, without noted dissents, indicated that the court continued to support the widely criticized doctrine of qualified immunity.
Saying the law is “plainly unconstitutional,” the department also asked the court to add the case to its docket in its current term.
A sweeping statement in a 1928 opinion about property rights was revised soon after it was issued. But the error lived on.
The Texas law prohibits most abortions after about six weeks, before many women are even aware they are pregnant.
With conservative justices in the majority, the court seems to be reshaping itself in Justice Thomas’s image.
Preliminary draft materials suggested that adding justices might be seen as a “partisan maneuver,” but said that an 18-year tenure merits “serious consideration.”
The Biden administration has pursued the case against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in spite of its own moratorium on capital punishment.
After the state’s political landscape shifted in 2019, the Democratic governor and the Republican attorney general disagreed on defending the law.
India’s government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has jailed thousands of people through a statute that critics say is aimed at silencing dissent.
These justices are courting disaster for the rest of us.
Here is the draft lawsuit that Michael P. Farris, chief executive of a group known as Alliance Defending Freedom, sent to the South Carolina attorney general, as he searched for a Republican state attorney general willing to file the lawsuit with the Supreme Court.
Twenty years ago, the court easily weathered the storm created by Bush v. Gore. But things are different now.
Twenty years after the Sept. 11 attacks, three justices said it was time to hear from the first detainee subjected to brutal interrogation by the C.I.A.
The justices will soon take on some of the most divisive topics in the U.S. amid concern about how politicized the institution has become.
As a term packed with major cases begins, much has changed since the last in-person arguments took place in March 2020.
Readers offer different perspectives on who’s at fault and how Democrats should come to agreement. Also: The Supreme Court's task.
When the Supreme Court hears arguments this fall in a big abortion case from Mississippi, it will consider dueling accounts of international practices.
Justices who once derided judicial “meddling” are now meddlers themselves.
The court, which is dominated by six Republican appointees, will confront a charged docket, including a case asking it to overrule Roe v. Wade.
Con una sentencia del Tribunal Supremo en juego, una medallista olímpica se unió a un grupo de más de 500 atletas que apoyan los derechos reproductivos.
Suggestions for Democrats in Congress; the return of live performances; Justice Sandra Day O'Connor; an airline no-fly list; boys' struggles.
Vaccine mandates in hospitals and schools; Haitians and immigration policy; abortion and Republicans.
With a Supreme Court ruling in the balance, an Olympic medalist joined a group of more than 500 athletes supporting reproductive rights.
Closely divided opinions on health care, voting, religion and gay rights cases.
Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas just signed a bill that would ban most abortions in the state. Here’s what else to know.
Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation has tilted the high court's ideological balance. What should the court’s future be, and who gets to decide it?
Democrats from 2016 make their case against the Democrats of today.
Republicans from 2016 make their case against Republicans of today.
If you’d like to create your own shrine to this indefatigable woman of words, these books are the building blocks.
The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday left an opening on the Supreme Court 46 days before Election Day.
The public generally supports the politically liberal position in the cases, though Democrats and Republicans are deeply divided over several of them.
Reporters for The Times provided live analysis as the Supreme Court heard arguments about whether President Trump can block subpoenas to his accountants and bankers from Congress and New York prosecutors.
And conservatives could be the big winners.
Conservatives seem to assume that only the chief justice is moved by fears that he and his colleagues will end up looking like politicians in robes.
Ronald DeRisi, 75, of Long Island, left expletive-laden voice mail messages at the offices of two senators and threatened to assault and shoot them.
President Trump may be the louder voice on the issue, but the vice president is the one many evangelicals hear.
The Senate majority leader acknowledged that Republicans would treat a judge nominated by a Republican president differently from one nominated by a Democratic president.
Will the court be able to avoid mirroring the country’s polarization?
An academic is worried that a strict gun law in New York City is being challenged in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has weighed in on affirmative action several times. Here are some key cases through the decades.
Justices will be reviewing the case of North Carolina, where Republicans drew a map to maximize their power in the House. Plaintiffs challenging the map say it’s unconstitutional.