In the term so far, including two major decisions on Thursday, the court’s expanded conservative majority is fractured and its liberals are often on the winning side.
In her opinions, Justice Sotomayor explains how Supreme Court cases are part of a larger unfolding story of where the country finds itself.
Violent felonies committed recklessly do not count in deciding whether 15-year terms are required under the Armed Career Criminal Act, the justices ruled.
The justices struggled to determine how the First Amendment applies to public schools’ power to punish students for social media posts and other off-campus speech.
The court, which has for years been cutting back on harsh punishments for juvenile offenders, changed course in a 6-to-3 decision.
The justices considered a California regulation that allowed labor representatives to meet with farm workers at their worksites for up to three hours a day for as many as 120 days a year.
It can’t be fixed. It can’t be reformed. Its flaws are inherent. Its time has come.
Roles in the ceremony and related events included performing the national anthem and leading the vice president in the oath of office.
Will she join the Supreme Court’s grievance conservatives?
The balance between Covid-19 precautions and civil liberties doesn’t need to be a partisan issue.
After a state election official banned the practice, a federal trial judge allowed, but did not require, counties to offer it in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Women’s representation in government is lagging. Change won’t happen by itself.
The push to impose the federal death penalty no matter the cost poses a grave threat to the rule of law.
The case concerned a Florida state law that limited the sweep of a voter initiative meant to allow former prisoners to vote.
Among them: Religion got a place at the public table long reserved for secular society.
Democrats in the state had urged the justices to reinstate a federal trial judge’s order based on the 26th Amendment, which bars voting discrimination based on age.
But the justices rejected a request that they rule the agency can never sue for disgorgement of profits obtained by fraud.
A host of reasons raise questions about the effectiveness of this reform.
The appeals court, which covers three Southern states, uses procedures “out of step with other courts,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, echoing critiques from judges and scholars.
Evidence from recent Supreme Court arguments suggests that the chief justice, like most people, may have ideological and gender blind spots.
The cases are the latest in a series the court has had before it considering the relationship between church and state.
The conference call started with the usual Oyez! chant, but that was almost the only traditional thing about the arguments in a trademark case.
Separate opinions in a case show nine justices pursuing agendas far removed from the dispute at hand.
A federal appeals court had found that the policy, which was put in place early last year, violated federal and international law.