She was the only member of the court appointed by the president to vote against his emergency request to freeze foreign aid.
We explore how the judiciary is stopping parts of the president’s agenda.
Plus, Dolly Parton’s love story.
The groups that sued insist the court’s ruling ought to force the Trump administration to restore all funding delivered via U.S.A.I.D. But the administration says it has the power to decimate the agency.
The Trump administration's moves to halt foreign assistance and lay off thousands at the nation's lead aid agency have been met with legal challenges that quickly ascended to the Supreme Court. See the major moments.
The move came after Chief Justice Roberts temporarily paused a trial judge’s order requiring the administration to release more than $1.5 billion.
Four sitting members of the court attended on Tuesday: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
The 5-to-4 decision is the latest setback for the agency and could have sweeping implications for curtailing water pollution offshore.
A majority of the justices seemed to question Mexico’s claim that it could prove a direct chain linking arms manufacturers to drug cartel violence.
Vengeance is his.
Trump is on shaky ground when it comes to the way he has empowered perhaps the most important figure in the new administration.
Ed Martin, the acting U.S. attorney in Washington, has been blocked so far in seeking a grand jury investigation into remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer about Supreme Court justices.
La disputa se centra en si México puede responsabilizar a los fabricantes estadounidenses de la violencia armada y se produce en medio de las crecientes tensiones entre los países.
The dispute focuses on whether Mexico can hold U.S. manufacturers liable for gun violence and comes amid rising tensions between the countries.
New York Times v. Sullivan and other landmark Supreme Court decisions protect the press’s ability to investigate public figures. But a growing right-wing movement seeks to overturn them.
The president’s about-face on Ukraine has taught our allies a lesson they won’t be unlearning anytime soon.
Democrats said a review mandated by executive order was “not a serious effort or attempt at reform.”
The president is handing over the viability of his second term to a figure who is accountable to no one but himself.
The justices ruled last week that the president could not, for now, remove a government lawyer who leads the watchdog agency that protects whistle-blowers.
Justices across the ideological spectrum and lawyers on both sides agreed that an appeals court erred in requiring members of majority groups to meet a heightened burden.
The government offers an implausible interpretation of the law.
If the president gets his way, it will mark a significant change in the operations of the national government and a major shift in power.
President Trump’s team has embraced the unitary executive theory, a legal ideology that argues that the Constitution prohibiting Congress from placing any limits on the president’s control of the executive branch, including by creating independent...
Both sides had told the justices that long-suppressed evidence had undermined the case against the inmate, Richard Glossip.
A lot hinges on how the president invokes the term, which has a rich political history.
The justices heard arguments in the case of a man on death row in Texas who claims DNA testing could spare his life.
Readers discuss the dismissal of military leaders. Also: A refusal to obey; the Supreme Court’s dilemma; students with disabilities; company profits; tenderness.
The justices have all but stopped issuing summary reversals, which are unsigned decisions used to correct clear errors by lower courts.
Besieged on all sides, the chief justice faces his greatest test yet.
The court’s order indicated that it may return to the issue as soon as next week, when a trial judge’s temporary restraining order is set to expire.
A former solicitor general, Mr. Clement has argued over 100 cases before the Supreme Court. Now he will present independent arguments as a judge decides whether to drop the charges against the mayor.
The justices unanimously ruled that the plaintiffs had not established a connection to the United States required by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
The Justice Department said a law protecting the officials from arbitrary removal is an unconstitutional intrusion on presidential authority.
The former Senate Republican leader had been widely expected to retire at the end of his term. He made it official on his 83rd birthday, after a recent run of opposing President Trump’s nominees.
La directiva aplica para diversas agencias del poder ejecutivo que el Congreso creó y facultó para regular aspectos de la economía.
The president has already challenged statutory protections against summarily firing officials overseeing such agencies without cause.
The department’s Office for Civil Rights warned that it would penalize schools that consider race in scholarships, hiring and an array of other activities.
Plus, how to remember everything.
The court’s conservative majority may be receptive to the argument that presidents have unlimited power to remove leaders of independent agencies.
People here illegally haven’t entered the social compact with the people of the United States.
More than 50 years ago, President Richard M. Nixon sought to fire the special prosecutor leading the Watergate investigation, but his attorney general refused and resigned.
If the president’s defiance continues, the standoff will create the prospect of a constitutional crisis, and it will be the state attorneys general who will defend the rule of law.
He lacks the skill to govern in the way the founders intended.
The president is challenging the constitutional order.
Danielle R. Sassoon, Manhattan’s interim U.S. attorney, built a life on conservative values and amassed a daunting resume. On Thursday, she took a stand against the Justice Department where she had made her career.
Unpacking the debate around President Trump’s executive orders.
Speaking in general terms at a Florida college and not naming President Trump, the Supreme Court justice’s remarks took on potency in the current climate.
Cuando las autoridades negaron que fuera ciudadano, Wong Kim Ark llevó su caso ante la Corte Suprema y ganó. Hoy, esa decisión es el centro del debate sobre quién puede ser estadounidense.
Law professors have long debated what the term means. But now many have concluded that the nation faces a reckoning as President Trump tests the boundaries of executive power.
Attacked by two justices, lower-court judges and litigants, the 1964 ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan keeps getting cited approvingly in the Supreme Court’s decisions.
When officials denied that he was a citizen, Wong Kim Ark took his case to the Supreme Court and won. Today, that decision is the focus of debate over who can be an American.
The new administration may transform our constitutional order fruitfully yet again, or it may accelerate a final degeneration into Caesarism.
An administration lawyer said a Tennessee law barring some medical treatments for transgender youths is constitutional and urged the justices to say so.
Protesting Trump isn’t enough this time.
If the case reaches the Supreme Court, its conservative majority will be receptive to Donald J. Trump’s argument that presidents have unlimited power to remove members of independent agencies.
The president is using every tool at his disposal to reshape the American founding.
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.