The justice participated remotely in a closed-door session of a legal conference, a reminder of the heightened threats facing jurists in recent years.
On what makes Congress secret and toxic.
The lawyer Thomas C. Goldstein, who co-founded the SCOTUSblog website, hid millions in gambling income from the government, federal prosecutors said.
The president has sought to end the program, known as Temporary Protected Status, for various migrants as part of his mass deportation efforts.
The ruling repudiates a key Homeland Security Department policy of sending immigrants to countries where they have no ties. The judge paused his ruling to allow for an appeal.
John DeLeeuw, an American Airlines executive, was confirmed to the seat vacated by Alvin Brown, who is suing over his ouster.
A la defensiva sobre la economía y ante la proximidad de las elecciones de mitad de mandato, el presidente Trump dejó claro que su estrategia política consiste en pintar a los demócratas como antipatriotas y “locos”.
En un discurso en el que abundó la teatralidad, el presidente Trump tachó a los demócratas de “locos” y antipatriotas.
The real state of the union.
On the defensive over the economy and with the midterms approaching, President Trump made clear that his political strategy is to paint Democrats as unpatriotic and ‘crazy.’
In an address that was heavy on theatrics, President Trump lashed out at Democrats as “crazy” and unpatriotic.
President Trump spoke for nearly two hours to a joint session of Congress.
How to read the gratuitous paragraph in the chief justice’s tariff opinion.
The question before the justices in a lawsuit filed by Michigan seeking to close part of the line was narrow. But the dispute raises broader questions about states’ power to regulate fossil fuels.
Critics are questioning the legality of the provision President Trump has used to replace his previous slate of tariffs, raising the prospect of yet another legal battle.
Just another attempt to ignore the law and dare the courts to step in.
The court agreed to revive a lawsuit by a Texas couple who claimed that tainted baby food purchased at Whole Foods had sickened their young son.
Thousands of companies are expected to follow FedEx’ in suing the government to recoup levy payments, after the Supreme Court overturned the tariffs.
La nueva estrategia requerirá una serie de aranceles más engorrosos, que Trump no podrá imponer rápidamente ni por capricho.
Readers discuss the justices’ decision rejecting tariffs. Also: PEN America defends its record on free speech; a plea to old-guard Republicans.
The E.U. isn’t throwing out the deal it agreed with the United States before President Trump’s tariffs were overruled, but European officials want more clarity first.
President Trump is already working to piece his tariff program back together, after a Supreme Court ruling ruptured a centerpiece of his economic agenda.
Los países que, bajo la amenaza de los aranceles, asumieron enormes promesas de inversión con EE. UU., ahora se enfrentan al hecho de que tal vez hubiera sido mejor esperar.
The case could have significant bearing on a range of other lawsuits brought against the fossil fuel industry by cities and states across the country.
Businesses and U.S. trade partners are again grappling with the uncertainty of President Trump’s trade war, even as he imposes new levies.
Christopher J. Waller, a Federal Reserve governor, said he would support a pause in rate cuts in March if the labor market continued to show signs of stabilizing.
The Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs. What happens next?
After the Trump administration’s punishing tariffs were invalidated, the president said he would impose new tariffs using a different authority. It’s been a whirlwind.
Our reporter Ann E. Marimow describes the rationale of the Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 ruling to strike down President Trump’s sweeping tariffs.
Amid rising tensions with Cuba, the Trump administration is backing lawsuits that would allow Americans to get compensation for property confiscated by Fidel Castro’s regime.
The tariff ruling may have just helped save the Republic.
Countries that under the threat of tariffs made commitments like enormous investment pledges face the reality that they may have been better off waiting.
In rejecting President Trump’s tariffs, the court’s six conservative justices displayed subtle differences in their views of executive power.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the president’s tariffs has jolted Washington and the business world. Here’s what to watch next.
The high court asserts itself as tariff sheriff.
India’s prime minister acceded to many of President Trump’s demands under pressure of heavy tariffs. It would be awkward to reject them now.
The decision could distract from other challenges facing the continent, like issues with China and the war in Ukraine.
In his concurrence to the ruling invalidating President Trump’s tariffs, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch made a forceful case for the sanctity of the legislative process — and an implicit critique of its current dysfunction.
The exemption was shut down last year by President Trump based, in part, on the same legal grounds as the tariffs that were invalidated by the Supreme Court.
Even after the Supreme Court invalidated many of the president’s levies, foreign leaders and executives assume that U.S. tariffs are here to stay, in one form or another.
El rechazo de la Corte Suprema al programa arancelario del presidente Trump es el más reciente de una serie de choques entre él y el presidente del tribunal, John Roberts Jr.
The court displayed its independence in what was a stinging rebuke to President Trump, though the ruling is unlikely to have an immediate effect on prices.
Some companies could decide to temper price increases, but the effect would take time to materialize.
The mood lighting appeared to be borrowing from the playbook of former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the old meme of “Dark Brandon.”
While the vast majority of Canadian exports were exempt from the tariffs now struck down, the ruling does not effect duties harming several key industries.
The justices struck down a central piece of President Trump’s agenda. What does that mean?
The Trump administration says it could take years and additional litigation for importers to get their money back.
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority in imposing tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.
The Supreme Court’s ruling against many of President Trump’s tariffs cheered executives who set to work seeking refunds on their duties.
The news arrived in a note passed by the U.S. trade representative.
What does this mean for the president, the economy — and your bank account?
The tariffs thrown out by the Supreme Court had become an important revenue source. President Trump said he could replace that money with other levies.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” the president said.
Readers react to the Supreme Court decision overturning President Trump’s tariffs. Also: Former Prince Andrew’s arrest; trade pacts based on whims.
The administration has been preparing for months for the possibility that the court would rule against the president and developed contingency plans.
The court’s rejection of President Trump’s tariffs program is the latest in a series of clashes between him and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Tariff revenue was always unlikely to be sufficient to cover the cost of his raft of promises, but the president still seemed to describe it as essentially limitless.
The company makes almost all of its products in countries facing steep levies, running up a tariff bill of $3.3 billion over the past three quarters.
Muslims make up a majority in Sambhal, but after deadly clashes over a mosque, they say they the arms of the state are now stifling them.
The Supreme Court has spoken. What now?
El fallo supone un duro revés para la agenda económica del presidente Trump. La Casa Blanca ha dicho que usará otras facultades para volver a imponer tributos a las importaciones.
The trio warned of immediate chaos over refunds and trade deals. They also provided President Trump with a list of other possible avenues for imposing tariffs.
The Supreme Court is deciding a series of cases central to President Trump’s second-term agenda.
The 1977 law gives the president broad economic powers during a national emergency.
President Trump was the first to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to set tariffs on imported goods from more than 100 countries.
Until our Constitution is amended, our government is not allowed to punish the innocent babies guaranteed full and equal citizenship by the Constitution.
President Trump’s advisers want him to lock down a message on the economy that will resonate ahead of the midterms. But Mr. Trump is never one to stay on message.
Alan Dershowitz was present at the creation of New York Times v. Sullivan. Now he is asking the Supreme Court to revise or destroy it.
Data released Thursday by the Census Bureau showed the overall trade deficit with the world narrowed, the result of an expanding trade surplus in services. The trade deficit in goods was the highest on record.
Environmental and health groups sued the E.P.A. over its elimination of the endangerment finding. The matter is likely to end up before the Supreme Court.
Netanyahu has gotten Trump to focus on Iran and ignore the destructive things Bibi is doing in Gaza, in the West Bank and inside Israel.
There are more Black senators than ever before, but a major Supreme Court ruling could reduce Black representation in the House.
The Supreme Court and appeals courts have been much more likely to rule in President Trump’s favor than the district courts have been. Why? Our reporter Mattathias Schwartz describes what’s going on.
Outside of law school classrooms, the liberal constitutional agenda is failing. Enter the American Constitution Society.
Readers discuss a guest essay asserting that formula promotes marriage equality. Also: Ethics and the Supreme Court.
Citizens are rediscovering this institution’s power and original purpose.
Adam Liptak, The Times’s chief legal affairs correspondent, is writing a new weekly newsletter, The Docket, to help demystify the justice system.
Lawyers for Representative Nicole Malliotakis, Republican of New York, asked the Supreme Court to block a ruling that would redraw her district lines.
The ruling was one of the most robust steps taken so far to force the Trump administration to give due process to the Venezuelan immigrants deported under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Trump administration has repealed the scientific determination that underpins the government’s legal authority to combat climate change.
Judge Richard J. Leon found that attempts to discipline Mark Kelly for a video that warned against following illegal orders would violate the senator’s First Amendment rights.
The justices put the case on a fast track at the administration’s urging. But they don’t seem in a rush to rule on the president’s signature economic program.
A very dangerous ruling in New Orleans.
The agency is racing to repeal a scientific finding that requires it to fight global warming. Experts say the goal is to get the matter before the justices while President Trump is still in office.
“Donald Trump has 99 problems going into the midterms,” one Democratic strategist said. “But money ain’t one.”
We got hundreds of suggestions.
The longtime Trump ally served four months in prison on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to testify to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Instead of a winner-takes-all approach to power, it’s time to consider working toward a system where there is much less power for the winner to take.
The state’s Republican Party had asked the justices to step in and block the new congressional maps, which give an advantage to Democrats, before the midterms.
An analysis finds that flagship state universities, as well as less selective colleges, had major increases in Black and Hispanic students following a ban on race-conscious admissions.
Legal experts said that jokes like the one told by Mr. Noah at the Grammys on Sunday were protected by the First Amendment.
Plus, big firsts at the Grammy Awards.
How four reporters are examining the most secretive branch of government — and the nine justices who shape the law.
Our investigative reporter Jodi Kantor uncovered that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked staff members at the Supreme Court to sign nondisclosure agreements shortly after the November 2024 election.
Amid calls to increase transparency and revelations about the court’s inner workings, the chief justice imposed nondisclosure agreements on clerks and employees.
On the limits of executive power.
The only crossing that connects Gaza with Egypt is reopening after nearly a year of closures. This will allow residents to leave for medical care or return to homes and families in the territory.
Trump parece estar dando marcha atrás en Mineápolis, pero hay una diferencia entre un cambio de opinión y una retirada táctica.
What MAGA sees in the Minneapolis mirror.
President Trump’s agenda faced more than 600 lawsuits over the past year. In many cases, district court judges found his policies to be unlawful.
Loloi stockpiled rugs from India, Turkey and other countries in advance, but inventory is running low.
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.