To understand the significance of this week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling, books about the Deep South’s changes in the 20th century are critical to read.
The former president, who faces seven criminal charges for mishandling classified documents, is expected to surrender to authorities next week.
Exclusively from New York Times Audio, our new app.
The Voting Rights Act lives to see another day.
The main remaining power of the landmark 1965 law, over racial bias in political mapmaking, gets an unexpected buttressing from a court that had been weakening the law for years.
A decision that said Alabama’s congressional voting maps were detrimental to Black voters was celebrated by advocates — and could mean changes to voting in other states.
Also, a victory for voting rights in the U.S.
The justices rejected the government’s interpretation of a 2004 law that adds two years in prison for certain felonies if they involved misusing another person’s identification.
The case, a trademark dispute, pitted Jack Daniel’s against Bad Spaniels Silly Squeakers, which looks like the distiller’s distinctive bottle and adds potty humor.
Voting rights advocates had feared that the decision about redistricting in Alabama would further undermine the Voting Rights Act, which instead appeared to emerge unscathed.
The composition of the Supreme Court has changed, but so has the composition of the country.
How the court’s 6-to-3 conservative majority is ruling this term after its lurch to the right a year ago in blockbuster decisions on abortion, guns, religion and climate change.
The justices asked for extensions to file annual forms that detail gifts, travel and real estate holdings.
That racial affirmative action in university admissions and elsewhere has survived for so long is remarkable given the powerful forces arrayed against it.
The decision, which national groups had been closely watching, was a potential setback to gun regulations spurred by a Supreme Court ruling last year that vastly expanded the right to bear arms.
It is difficult to overstate the court’s hostility to organized labor and the rights of American workers.
The school will offer online, Roman Catholic instruction funded by taxpayers. Its approval is certain to tee off a legal battle over the separation of church and state.
In earlier cases, the justices struck down provisions of the trademark law that discriminated based on the speaker’s viewpoint.
Asian students lose out with this college admissions system, but so do low-income ones.
Advice for college graduates. Also: Right-to-shelter laws; the work commute; teaching reading; Ron DeSantis and Clarence Thomas.
Readers discuss calls for stronger ethics guidelines for the justices and less partisanship.
A Supreme Court ruling barred Oklahoma from prosecuting crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal land, but some Black tribal members are still being prosecuted because they lack “Indian blood.”
With the fight over the debt ceiling resolved, investors are turning to other concerns, including inflation and interest rates.
Exclusively from New York Times Audio, our new app.
In recent years, the judiciary has shown little but contempt for other governing institutions. It has earned a little in return.
The justices ruled that federal labor law did not block state courts from ruling on a case regarding damage caused when workers walked off the job.
Hunter Biden’s legal team is invoking a Supreme Court decision his father has denounced as an affront to “common sense and the Constitution.”
Long seen as kowtowing to the military, the judiciary has defied it in recent rulings, signaling an important shift in Pakistan’s political landscape.
The legislation would prevent President Biden from issuing another last-minute extension on the payments beyond the end of the summer.
Will lawmakers allow what one justice called the court’s “appointment of itself as the national decision maker on environmental policy”?
The justices will soon rule on race-conscious admissions plans at Harvard and U.N.C. A new appeals court case asks whether schools can use race-neutral tools to achieve racial diversity.
If requested, the Common App will conceal basic information on race and ethnicity — a move that could help schools if the Supreme Court ends affirmative action.
A loan servicing agency looks to make more money, not less, if Biden’s plan goes into effect.
We have a long history with various forms of sub-national authoritarianism.
The justices need, at long last, a clear, comprehensive and transparent code of ethics.
In a unanimous decision, the justices sided with a 94-year-old woman who got nothing when a Minnesota county sold her condominium to recoup unpaid taxes.
Experts said the decision would sharply undercut the agency’s authority to protect millions of acres of wetlands under the Clean Water Act, leaving them subject to pollution without penalty.
In remarks at an awards ceremony, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also addressed heckling at law schools and security for members of the court.
Parents had objected to Thomas Jefferson High School in Virginia changing its admissions policies, including getting rid of an exam. The case appears headed for the Supreme Court.
Judiciary Committee members had asked for an accounting of gifts and travel provided to Justice Clarence Thomas.
With his 2024 campaign imminent, Ron DeSantis pointed to how he could tilt the court further to the right. He also highlighted his ability to serve for eight years as president, unlike Donald Trump.
Inside a copyright case that dissenting justices say could stifle creativity.
In past instances of public criticism, the court has occasionally changed its ways.
A justice who frequently struggles to see injustice and cruelty in the present will surely struggle to see injustice and cruelty in the past.
Richard Prince, an artist who appropriates images like Andy Warhol did, is being sued. But experts said the Supreme Court’s Warhol ruling may have little impact on the case.
Democrats used to criticize the Supreme Court respectfully. Increasingly, they see the court as irredeemable.
The limit Congress imposes is dumb, but Biden can’t just wave it away.
The Supreme Court decision over Andy Warhol’s use of Lynn Goldsmith’s Prince photograph was decided on the narrow grounds of a licensing issue. But it could still have a chilling effect.
The entertainment giant’s move to cancel a major office project stung the Florida governor just days before he is expected to officially enter the 2024 race.
The justices acted after the Biden administration announced that the health emergency used to justify the measure, Title 42, was ending.
The justices ruled in one case that a law allowing suits for aiding terrorism did not apply to the ordinary activities of social media companies.
The justices considered whether the artist was free to use elements of a rock photographer’s portrait of the musician Prince.
No wonder Justice Thomas apparently thought his behavior was no big deal.
The justices struck down a New York gun control law last year, announcing a new test to evaluate the constitutionality of such measures.
A new book by the legal scholar Stephen Vladeck argues that unsigned and unexplained decisions issued through the court’s shadow docket have helped propel its jurisprudence to the right.
The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 sought to keep Native children in tribal communities. The Supreme Court may change that this spring.
The justices will decide whether individual House Democrats have standing to sue for documents concerning possible conflicts of interest.
A unanimous three-judge panel found that a congressional voting district anchored in Charleston, S.C., violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The phrase, seemingly deleted in error, undermines the basis for qualified immunity, the legal shield that protects police officers from suits for misconduct.
Democrats are not out to weaken the Supreme Court. But they should be.
In a pair of unanimous rulings, the court sided with Joseph Percoco, a former aide to Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York, and Louis Ciminelli, a contractor in Buffalo.
The court ruled that the measure did not violate constitutional limits on state laws that affect conduct beyond the state’s borders.
What to think about the scandal-prone justice and the Supreme Court? Our hosts talk it through.
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.