A three-judge panel allowed construction on the ballroom to proceed until April 17, but asked a lower court to untangle the details of the president’s plans.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. is the subject of intense speculation about whether he will retire in the coming months and give President Trump a fourth nominee.
Echoes of unexplained emergency orders in justices’ failures to say why they disqualified themselves from hearing cases.
Stephen K. Bannon, a former close aide to President Trump, was convicted for failing to comply with a congressional subpoena related to the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack.
From Tehran to the Supreme Court, a look at Trump’s relentless battles.
Supreme Court justices are not required to release information about their health, and the disclosure practices of individual justices have varied.
Demand Justice plans to tie Republicans running for Senate this year to a possible fight to fill vacancies that could emerge on the Supreme Court.
It may be a new world, but “it’s the same Constitution.”
The justices seems poised to rule against the president’s birthright citizenship plan. He is already furious over their decision rejecting his tariffs program.
The justices heard arguments on Wednesday in a hearing attended by President Trump.
Está en juego algo más que un caso legal: la ciudadanía por derecho de nacimiento toca el núcleo de la cultura y los valores estadounidenses.
Los jueces de la Corte de EE. UU. se enfrentaron a cuestiones sobre domicilios y niños expósitos, evitaron debates políticos y reflexionaron sobre el alcance de posibles sentencias.
During a Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday, several justices expressed skepticism about the Trump administration’s efforts to bar children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States from automatically becoming Americans.
The case is open-and-shut on the merits. But its procedural course still leaves plenty of room for Trump administration overreach.
The justices grappled with questions about domiciles and foundlings, avoided policy debates and mused about the sweep of possible rulings.
La presencia del presidente Trump en el tribunal lo puso cara a cara con jueces a los que ha intentado intimidar y amedrentar.
Readers discuss the justices’ decision on gay conversion therapy. Also: An immigrant’s story; a list of Jews at Penn?
Different treatment for mothers and fathers is at odds with a 2017 Supreme Court decision, and other ideas in the order are hard to understand.
The term refers to pregnant women who travel to the United States to give birth so that their baby can have American citizenship.
Trump is on a mission to eliminate birthright citizenship, a right long thought to be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. But how will the Supreme Court respond? The legal journalist Cristian Farias shares his insights.
President Trump’s presence in the court puts him face to face with justices whom he has tried to bully and intimidate.
She has spent much of her career defending immigrants’ rights in America.
We look at an important case before the Supreme Court.
Trump wants to find out just how weak this Supreme Court is.
The justices will consider the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented people and some temporary foreign visitors.
Wong Kim Ark brought his case to the Supreme Court in 1898. But some of his descendants didn’t even know his name until about 15 years ago.
President Trump wants to take away a fundamental American promise.
The state and more than 20 others restrict therapists from trying to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of L.G.B.T.Q. clients under the age of 18.
Frustrated by the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, some Latino voters say they also disagree with his plan, now before the Supreme Court, to reject automatic citizenship for children born in the United States to immigrant parents.
As the justices prepare to hear a landmark case about birthright citizenship, their family stories are a reminder that the law has shaped who can be an American.
As the court prepares to hear oral arguments in a landmark case on birthright citizenship, our Supreme Court correspondent, Abbie VanSickle, traced the justices’ ancestries. She found family histories that spanned the American experience, including one case of birthright citizenship.
El miércoles, la Corte Suprema escuchará los argumentos sobre la legalidad de la orden ejecutiva de Trump, y algunos expertos legales conservadores afirman que podría ser un caso más disputado de lo que se pensaba.
Before President Trump’s order to limit birthright citizenship, there was widespread agreement that the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship for U.S.-born babies.
The framers of the 14th Amendment endorsed a capacious definition of ‘American.’
His project of subordination at home and abroad continues unabated.
Our local dispute should serve as a warning to all Americans about the midterms.
The president must confront a 1952 federal law, the possibility that millions will lose their citizenships, stateless foundlings and a fluid future.
Quebec’s ban on religious symbols — and a measure that suspends constitutional rights — are being tested in a case with far-reaching repercussions.
Courts are weighing whether the administration can hold undocumented immigrants without bond, an issue that may be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Republicans are eying a last-ditch procedural maneuver to overcome united Democratic opposition, but the chances for success are slim.
The court’s conservatives appear skeptical of laws allowing mail ballots to arrive after Election Day. A decision could come as late as June, potentially scrambling midterm elections.
Leading music labels sued Cox Communications for failing to terminate accounts of subscribers flagged for distributing copyrighted music.
“Who won the 2020 election?” is the question that Trump’s nominees to the federal bench each refuse to answer in the same exact way.
Rodney Reed’s quest over the last decade to obtain DNA testing to try to prove his innocence has attracted wide attention.
The appeals court that struck down a Mississippi law on mail-in ballots ruled that voting requires a different approach from other areas of the law.
The laws — and ballot grace periods — vary from state to state.
The case focuses on Mississippi’s mail-in ballot law, but the outcome could upend similar rules in more than a dozen states and territories.
The Republican National Committee wants to toss ballots arriving after Election Day. Critics say thousands of votes — a majority cast by Democrats — are at stake.
Gabriel Olivier was arrested after violating an ordinance restricting demonstrations outside an amphitheater in Brandon, Miss.
The university has become more hers than his.
In a caustic critique of the court issued on social media late Sunday night, the president inadvertently buttressed its independence.
Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas have passed laws requiring the posters in public schools. Several other states are considering similar measures.
The public remarks from Chief Justice John Roberts were his first since President Trump excoriated the justices who ruled against his tariffs in harsh and personal terms.
The justices will hear arguments over the president’s efforts to terminate the program, known as Temporary Protected Status, for migrants from Haiti and Syria as part of his mass deportation efforts.
The administration’s policy of deporting people to South Sudan, Rwanda and other distant countries has been a striking attempt to create uncertainty for immigrants.
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 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.