Under the plan, schools would set aside educational trust funds of at least $30,000 per year for at least half of their athletes, and would have to comply with Title IX laws.
The Supreme Court’s liberal wing and more moderate conservatives seemed to be searching for a way toward a limited ruling on a tax law that affects foreign profits of American companies.
A woman who is 20 weeks pregnant, and whose fetus has been diagnosed with a deadly condition, is suing for an abortion under a medical exception to the state’s bans.
The activist, Deborah Laufer, had sued hundreds of hotels as a “tester,” having no intention of booking a stay, accusing them of inadequate disclosures about whether rooms were accessible.
The Supreme Court ruling in the Moore case could cost the federal government billions of dollars in lost tax revenue.
Oral arguments begin on Tuesday in a high-stakes case that could redefine what is taxable income.
She showed her love for John in a way that neither of them could have envisioned.
Hear the news in five minutes.
The justices’ questions reflected the tension between the practical effect of unraveling the settlement and broader concerns about whether the Sacklers should be granted such wide-ranging immunity.
A federal appeals court had signed off on a deal that would shield members of the wealthy Sackler family from lawsuits in exchange for billions for those harmed by the opioid epidemic.
She stands as a shining example of how women — everyone, really — can approach life and work.
A broad ruling by the Supreme Court could mean the end of a strategy for resolving claims of mass injury in bankruptcy court in which organizations receive expansive legal protections.
The court will decide whether Purdue’s owners can gain permanent immunity from future opioid lawsuits in exchange for payments up to $6 billion.
Justice O’Connor devoted her life after the court to fighting for an independent judiciary free of politics.
The Supreme Court justice, who died at 93 on Friday, made a series of influential rulings and inspired women across a range of fields as she cemented her legacy.
The Supreme Court justice found herself balancing conflicting demands of professional achievement and family expectations to the end.
The New York Times sat down with Sandra Day O’Connor in 2008 to discuss her groundbreaking life and work as the first woman on the Supreme Court. She spoke with us with the understanding the interview would be published only after her death.
Justice O’Connor loved being a politician and, in a way, never stopped being one.
Justice O’Connor, the first woman on the Supreme Court, was a swing vote on polarizing issues before a closely divided court. These books offer insight into her life, career and legacy.
Since her retirement in 2006, the court has dismantled her key rulings on abortion, affirmative action and campaign finance.
Public figures from across the political spectrum heralded the former Supreme Court justice for breaking barriers for women and striving for consensus on the nation’s highest court.
During a crucial period in American law — when abortion, affirmative action, sex discrimination and voting rights were on the docket — she was the most powerful woman in the country.
The decision to try to compel cooperation from a leading judicial activist and a Republican megadonor came over fierce G.O.P. opposition and threats of retaliation.
Activists said the designation could put L.G.B.T.Q. people and their organizations under threat of criminal prosecution for something as simple as displaying the rainbow flag.
The justices heard arguments over whether the Constitution allows the agency to pursue enforcement actions before its own judges instead of in federal courts.
Voters could go to the polls in 2024 without knowing whether one of the candidates is criminally responsible for trying to overturn the last one.
A federal law imposes a mandatory 15-year sentence for possessing a gun after committing three serious drug offenses. But which offenses count?
Two Republican lawmakers had argued that they could not be questioned about their motives for supporting the laws, which require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.
The rulings in Maryland and Oregon come amid a shifting legal landscape in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that has imposed new limits on gun regulation.
Biden administration officials are watching whether the British government’s attempt to salvage its Rwanda asylum policy risks undermining the Northern Ireland peace accord.
This term largely revolves around a single question: Will our government retain the capacity to address the most pressing issues of our time?
A federal ruling this week was only the latest in decades of legal challenges to a law that has shored up Black Americans’ political power.
The ruling, which is almost certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court, would effectively bar private citizens and civil rights groups from suing under a key provision of the landmark law.
The next big Second Amendment case, after one on domestic violence, could be about whether the government can disarm a man who lied to get food stamps.
Perhaps more than ever, there is an urgent need for a clear understanding of liberalism.
Here’s what caught my eye this week.
A federal judge in Orlando ruled that the law violated the First Amendment, saying it was “specifically designed to suppress the speech of drag queen performers.”
Readers criticize the code as weak and unenforceable. Also: The Trump trial; an optional Regents exam in New York; Anne Frank; vaping among the young.
Overturning Roe changed politics. Overturning affirmative action did not.
The code of conduct issued on Monday, following reports of undisclosed travel and gifts, includes no enforcement mechanism and lets individual justices decide ethics questions for themselves.
The Supreme Court’s new ethics code lacks any teeth and is full of language too fuzzy to hold justices accountable. And its tone is resentful.
Plus, an ethics code for the Supreme Court and a new report on climate change.
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it had issued an ethics code for the justices after a series of revelations about undisclosed property deals and gifts intensified pressure on the court to adopt one. Here are the ethics rules.
The code does not specify how the rules would be enforced or by whom.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented, saying that the prisoner, Michael Johnson, should be able to challenge prolonged denial of fresh air.
The Roberts court’s commitment to history and tradition leads to decisions that reflect a constitutional order made with men in mind.
The Judiciary Committee postponed votes to issue subpoenas for benefactors of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito after Republicans threatened a politically charged fight.
Justices who have pushed against restrictions on gun ownership seemed sympathetic to limits for people under domestic violence restraining orders.
Plus, a gun rights case at the Supreme Court and WeWork’s bankruptcy filing.
The court, whose gun rights decision last year set a new historical legal standard, will consider whether the government may disarm people subject to restraining orders for domestic abuse.
A decision in the case could extend far beyond domestic abuse by clarifying the scope of a court ruling last year on gun rights.
The justices will hear arguments on Tuesday on whether the government can disarm people subject to restraining orders for domestic abuse.
Zackey Rahimi has vowed “to stay away from all firearms and weapons” in a case that could expand gun rights protections, but advocates say he is not an ideal poster boy for the Second Amendment.
A 72-year-old city councilwoman in Texas, accused of misplacing a document, says she was the victim of retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights.
Even pro-firearms politicians are absent in the briefs supporting a lawsuit to make it harder to keep weapons out of abusers’ hands.
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.