Supreme Court decisions, oral arguments, judicial appointments, constitutional rulings, and legal analysis from America's highest court.
The US Supreme Court agreed to hear Genalo v. Black, challenging indefinite detention of criminal immigrants pending removal. The case involves two legal permanent residents detained for months without bond hearings. The Justice Department asked the Court to decide if bond hearings are required and what standard of proof applies.
The US Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to President Trump's 2018 tariffs on China, keeping them in effect. The decision may allow the administration to replace emergency tariffs struck down in February 2026. Businesses argued the tariffs cost consumers nearly $75 billion annually.
This commentary analyzes the US Supreme Court's rare denial of Alabama's emergency application in a capital case, Lovelace v. Lee. The author argues that the unexplained denial could stem from either substantive issues with method-of-execution challenges or procedural limits on the Court's emergency authority, but the lack of explanation leaves the rationale unclear.
This commentary argues that the US Supreme Court's remaining decisions this term are pivotal for President Trump's agenda, highlighting cases on birthright citizenship, temporary protected status, and presidential firing power. It suggests that Trump's recent pessimism on the birthright citizenship case may signal a potential loss, and that the court could overturn a long-standing precedent on presidential authority.
This commentary argues that upcoming Supreme Court decisions on executive power, immigration, and citizenship will significantly affect President Trump's second-term agenda. It contends that rulings on birthright citizenship and Temporary Protected Status could define the limits of presidential authority and shape the balance between the White House, Congress, and the courts.
This commentary argues that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear was uniquely influential, inspiring Congress to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It contends that most dissents wait for a new majority, but this one prompted immediate legislative action, highlighting the power of judicial dissent to drive legal change.
This commentary argues that the Supreme Court should prioritize the legal traditions from the first 175 years of American history over the precedents set by the Warren and Burger Courts. It contends that the Court's modern rulings on issues like church-state separation and abortion are judicial impositions that should be overturned in favor of originalist interpretation.
This commentary highlights the anxiety of immigrant mothers awaiting a US Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship. It argues that ending birthright citizenship could leave babies stateless, particularly affecting asylum-seekers like Yenifer from Venezuela, and emphasizes the human stakes of the legal battle.
This commentary argues that the US Supreme Court's ruling restricting private lawsuits under the Investment Company Act has broader implications beyond Wall Street, potentially signaling the end of implied rights of action in federal laws protecting basic rights. The author contends the justices were debating the future of individual enforcement mechanisms.
This commentary argues that the US Supreme Court faces internal angst and public perception challenges as it prepares to release major decisions, including cases involving President Trump's policies. It suggests the court is increasingly viewed as a political organ, with justices concerned about the president's attacks on their legitimacy.