Judging from oral arguments Tuesday in McCutcheon v. FEC, justices are likely to eliminate limits on how much individuals can give each cycle.
Supreme Court dissents are a relatively recent phenomenon that have fundamentally changed the course of constitutional dialogue. Too bad justices aren’t summoning much enthusiasm for them this term.
His concurring opinion in the tariffs case may become the Roberts Court’s most influential statement on how to prevent the steady accretion of executive power.
The crowds rallying for a decisive statement on equality should prepare for anticlimax, and perhaps disappointment.
It is easy to mock the enraged opinions coming from the justices—but they’re no laughing matter.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s career offers a lesson for today’s Supreme Court.
In West Virginia v. EPA, the conservative justices acted like they were handing power to the people, but in reality they were giving it to themselves.
Yesterday’s decision demonstrates the justices’ sympathy for their powerful peers.
The court is too radical to win even this Supreme Court’s approval, but not too radical to influence it deeply.