To cover the Supreme Court these days is to catalogue its lawlessness. The conservative justices’ latest decision in McMahon ...

Mark Joseph Stern: Under federal law, Trump cannot remove Powell over a policy disagreement. Federal law expressly allows for ...

While the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority is pushing the law rightward, the justices appointed by GOP presidents ...

When the Supreme Court overturns rulings without offering any explanation, it is simply wielding raw power. And raw power ...

The Roberts Court has asked for reargument in a key redistricting case, a move that strongly suggests the conservative ...

In their decision allowing the Trump administration to dismantle the Department of Education, the justices didn’t offer one ...

By a two-to-one margin, the public believes justices prioritize politics over the law. That's a disaster for the Supreme ...

The conservative wing of the Supreme Court gave the middle finger to Congress, low-income families, student-loan holders, ...

"The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them," Sotomayor wrote.

Many legal commentators apparently believe that, in the term that just ended, the Supreme Court further enabled President ...

In response, several parents sued, arguing that exposing their children to the books threatened their right to raise their children according to their faith.

In a precedent-based legal system, you can’t know what the law is if you don’t have judicial opinions explaining why the courts have reached their conclusions.