A year after Dobbs, it’s clear who is suffering the brunt of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

It does illustrate the judicial ethics system’s blind spots, however.

The Supreme Court justice accepted a luxury vacation from a Republican megadonor, didn’t disclose it, and then ruled on one of his cases.

A case involving the EPA’s protection of wetlands somehow became a forum for some fiery justice-on-justice warfare over textualism.

And it’s entirely possible if he becomes president.

The high court will decide if free speech rights extend to inducing illegal immigration.

The high court’s most unusual case of the current term will determine if our trademark laws are all bark and no bite.

There are enough justices who seem to oppose the president’s proposal on the merits. That doesn’t mean there are enough votes to strike it down—yet.

The day is coming when some Americans won’t accept a Roberts court decision that allows red states to reach into blue states and take people’s freedoms away. What then?

While our reliance on capital punishment continues to decline, this has only served to illuminate its increasing cruelty—and the incompetence of its practitioners.

The just-passed defense spending bill includes provisions designed to protect judges from violence. But legal journalists say these measures infringe on their rights.

The hot new electoral subversion idea brewed up by the conservative legal movement may be too extreme for some of the Supreme Court’s conservatives.

The high court’s conservatives could alter protections for LGBTQ citizens based on a case whose plaintiff describes an entirely hypothetical injury.

The majority’s arguments in last year’s big gun-control ruling has touched off some truly chaotic interpretations from lower courts.

While members of the high court’s conservative bloc have historically taken a dim view of Congress’s investigative powers, they’re pointedly leaving this select committee alone.

It’s an ironic twist in a year when Americans rallied to democracy’s defense.

After an epic day of oral arguments in two affirmative action cases, it’s clear that the conservative justices will do what they want regardless of facts, law, or precedent.

A pair of death penalty decisions reaffirms a sad fact about the high court: There is a majority of justices who want to keep the executions coming.

The high court is set to hear two major cases that could allow the conservative majority to redefine the Equal Protection Clause.

Right-wing judicial hegemony presents a daunting challenge for liberal leaders—but not an insurmountable one.