U.S. Supreme Court

The vice president told a crowd of roughly 20,000 in Dallas that former President Donald J. Trump had said he would terminate the Constitution in a second term.

For decades, the court has been reluctant to allow lawsuits against individual federal officials. Donald Trump’s fixer-turned-nemesis believes he has found an exception.

Impeachment has no realistic chance of advancing in the Republican-controlled House, but it speaks to a motivating issue for Democrats: the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.

The marshal was sitting in an unmarked federal vehicle near the Supreme Court justice’s home when a man approached the vehicle and pointed a handgun at him through the driver’s side window.

The senators said the Supreme Court justice’s failure to disclose lavish gifts and luxury travel showed a “willful pattern of disregard for ethics laws.”

Legal maneuverings followed a Supreme Court ruling last month that denied the Sackler family immunity from liability over its role in the opioid crisis.

Readers lament and support the president’s refusal to heed calls to step aside. Also: Televised therapy; Supreme Court rulings.

The Supreme Court decision granting former presidents broad protection from prosecution kicked to the trial court key rulings about how much of Donald Trump’s indictment on election charges can stand.

He is gravitating toward the extreme fringes of the conservative legal world.

The junior member of the court’s six-justice conservative supermajority often questioned its approach and wrote important dissents joined by liberal justices.

Some of the rulings that came before the justices’ decision on presidential immunity could prove to have just as big an impact.

After President Biden’s rocky answer on abortion at the debate, his campaign has ramped up its messaging on Donald Trump’s role in overturning Roe v. Wade and his policy stances.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett has found her voice.

In both Trump cases the liberal dissenters are more originalist than the conservative majority.

The postponement was likely to cause only minor delays to the case, which has already slowed to a crawl with Judge Aileen Cannon’s previous decisions.

The American republic feels fragile.

The former president’s lawyers asked to freeze nearly all proceedings while they sort out whether the Supreme Court decision applies to charges focused on actions after he left the White House.

Most of the court’s decisions were principled and sound — most, but unfortunately not all.

Aunque los gobernantes gozan de inmunidad limitada mientras ocupan el cargo en países como Japón y Australia, no existe nada similar a las amplias protecciones que la corte parece haber concedido en su fallo.

El tribunal declaró que los expresidentes tienen inmunidad por sus acciones oficiales. Este fallo revela cómo los jueces conservadores ven el poder del líder de la nación.

Impeachments, bankruptcies, fraud judgments, felonies. Nothing sticks. Nothing matters.

Christian nationalists aim to impose their beliefs on others.

Blockbuster decisions by the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed supermajority — expanding one kind of executive branch authority while undercutting another — were no contradiction.

The Supreme Court has had a volatile term, taking on a stunning array of major disputes and assuming a commanding role in shaping American society and democracy. Adam Liptak and Abbie VanSickle, supreme court reporters at The New York Times, explain how a season of blockbuster cases defined the court.

Legal experts say the U.S. Supreme Court ruling pushes past most of the norms in effect among American allies, adding more concern about the reliability of U.S. power.

The court dismisses an abortion case it now says it should never have accepted, opening a window on internal tensions.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority largely embraced Donald Trump’s dark view of tit-for-tat partisan prosecutions while liberals cited the prospect of power unchecked by legal accountability.

For Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel, and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, sweeping anti-regulatory rulings are the big payoff of their drive to reshape the federal courts.

Más allá de Donald Trump, la decisión se suma a la expansión aparentemente unidireccional de la autoridad ejecutiva.

Analistas y observadores ya preveían, a grandes rasgos, la decisión que establece que los presidentes merecen protección considerable por sus actos oficiales. Trump lo proclamó como una victoria.

Determining which of the alleged acts that Donald Trump is being prosecuted for in the state were official conduct, and which were not, could delay the case for months.

Three justices dissented in the case, which could affect more than two dozen youths sentenced to die in prison.

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant presidents immunity from prosecution over official actions is an extraordinary expansion of executive power. Charlie Savage, a reporter for The New York Times, analyzes the ruling by the court’s conservative majority, its long-term implications, and the three liberal justices’ vehement dissent.

Lawyers and other readers discuss the landmark Supreme Court decision. Also: A ruling on corruption; doctors and abortion bans; religion in public schools.

The law, meant to shield minors from sexual materials on the internet by requiring adults to prove they are at least 18, was challenged on First Amendment grounds.

The court, which issued two major decisions on guns in the term that ended Monday, does not seem ready to return to the subject.

Liberal outlets criticized the ruling as a biased move from a conservative Supreme Court. Conservative commentators admonished Democrats for opposing it.

Donald J. Trump’s lawyers want to argue that a Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity for official acts should void his felony conviction for covering up hush money paid to a porn star.

Amid signs of dysfunction and disarray, Chief Justice John Roberts reasserted his authority, while the influence of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito waned.

What the Supreme Court’s ruling means for Donald Trump, and how it may reshape presidential power for years to come.

What the Supreme Court decision means for the former president, and for the presidency itself.

Presidential immunity never existed in America. Until now.

The Nixonian theory of presidential power is now enshrined as constitutional law.

It is increasingly clear that this court sees itself as something other than a participant in our democratic system.

Big Tech is increasingly safe from government regulation.

El principio básico de que los presidentes no están por encima de la ley se ha dejado de lado, lo que se traduce en un paso hacia la monarquía

Beyond Donald J. Trump, the decision adds to the seemingly one-way ratchet of executive authority.

President Biden spoke after the Supreme Court’s ruling that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.

In his concurrence to the immunity decision, the justice questioned whether there was a legal basis for naming the special counsel — a topic also being explored by the judge in the documents case.

The decision most likely delays Donald Trump’s Jan. 6 case past the election, and if he wins in November, people close to him expect the Justice Department to drop the charges.

The president, under scrutiny since his damaging debate appearance last week, did not stumble or falter during his brief remarks.

In a step toward monarchy, the bedrock principle that presidents are not above the law has been set aside.

The Supreme Court’s immunity decision directed the trial court to hold hearings on what portions of the indictment can survive — a possible chance for prosecutors to set out their case in public before Election Day.

An evidentiary hearing in federal court could lay out previously undisclosed information.

Key excerpts from the decision reveal how the court’s conservative majority views the power of the nation’s leader.

El tribunal determinó que el expresidente tiene presunta inmunidad en sus conductas oficiales, y que toca a los tribunales de primera instancia distinguirlas de las no oficiales.

Former President Donald J. Trump took the action hours after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling granted him immunity for official acts committed in office.

Instead of delivering a judgment many months ago and allowing the trial to proceed, the justices gave Trump the gift of delay piled upon delay.

Readers discuss some of the major decisions at the end of the court’s term.

The final day of the current Supreme Court term included some of the most eagerly awaited decisions.

The rule of law is perhaps entirely in the hands of the American people.

The three Democratic appointees railed against the ruling that former President Donald J. Trump has some immunity for his official actions, declaring that their colleagues had made the president into “a king above the law.”

The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen. In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power.

The justices unanimously returned two cases, which concerned state laws that supporters said were aimed at “Silicon Valley censorship,” to lower courts. Critics had said the laws violated the sites’ First Amendment rights.

The ruling could amplify the impact of a separate decision overturning the Chevron doctrine, which had required courts to defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of statutes.

Plus, Hurricane Beryl threatens the Caribbean.

Americans are owed better from the Democratic Party.

Rarely has a case had less legal meaning and greater moral weight.

The court swept aside a precedent that endangers countless regulations — and transfers power from the executive branch to Congress and the courts.

Four cases backed by conservative activists in recent years have combined to diminish the power of the Environmental Protection Agency.

In finding that prosecutors misused an obstruction law to charge rioters, the justices highlighted the lack of an established legal blueprint for addressing an attack on the foundations of democracy.

In states that have banned abortion, hospitals have struggled to treat pregnant women facing health risks. A Supreme Court decision this week did not help.

The Bible has a deep history in American classrooms, but the state’s provocative superintendent wants to broadly expand its influence.

Two rulings this week by the Republican-appointed majority add to its steady pursuit of enfeebling the ability of the administrative state to impose rules on powerful business interests.

Stephen Bannon will have to begin serving four months in prison on Monday, after the court turned aside his request to remain free while he appeals his conviction for contempt of Congress.

The combination of President Biden’s debate performance and adverse Supreme Court rulings left Democrats reeling and in despair with elections not far off.

Successive successes reinvigorated Donald Trump’s campaign a month after he became the first major party nominee convicted of a felony.

Everyone in our system, including judges and members of Congress, will be nudged to do their proper constitutional work.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has made it easier to sue agencies and get their rules struck down.

The decision overturning a longstanding precedent is likely to spawn challenges to dozens of tax regulations.

The decision overturning a precedent known as Chevron deference was celebrated by those who would target medication abortion and rights for transgender people.

Experts in legal ethics have said that the activities of the justices’ wives raised serious questions about their impartiality.

Challenges could range from whether tainted spinach can be traced back to a farm to a decision on whether drugs are safe and effective enough to be sold in the United States.

The decision is expected to prompt a rush of litigation challenging regulations across the entire federal government, from food safety to the environment.

The ruling that the Justice Department misused a 2002 law in charging a pro-Trump rioter who entered the Capitol could have an impact on hundreds of other cases, including one against Donald Trump.

A foundational 1984 decision had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.

The case is likely to have broad ramifications for how cities across the country respond to homelessness.

The court’s strategy of avoidance and delay cannot last and may have been shaped by a desire to avoid controversy in an election year.

El caso, uno de varios que se centran en cómo se aplica la Primera Enmienda a las plataformas tecnológicas, fue desestimado porque los demandantes carecían de pruebas para legitimar sus reclamos.

The Trumpist right is presenting aggressive legal theories that fail again and again.

A reporter observed a day of messages to the National Domestic Violence Hotline. She does not know the callers’ names, but she’ll never forget their stories.

It’s a busy time for a reporter on the Supreme Court beat, with momentous decisions coming down one after another.

Half of the water flowing through regional river basins starts in so-called ephemeral streams. Last year, the Supreme Court curtailed federal protections for these waterways.

We scrutinized the presidential candidates’ recent claims on abortion, health care, crime and climate change ahead of the debate.

Plaintiffs and the company vowed to renegotiate but the talks will be challenging after the court struck down a provision the Sacklers had insisted on in exchange for $6 billion.

A majority of the justices voted to dismiss the case, reinstating a lower-court ruling that paused the state’s near-total abortion ban. The ruling mirrored a version inadvertently posted a day earlier.

Common in executive agencies, such tribunals hear enforcement actions without juries — a practice the court’s conservative supermajority said violated the Constitution.

The justices rejected a bankruptcy settlement maneuver that would have protected members of the Sackler family from civil claims related to the opioid epidemic.

Three states challenged the administration’s “good neighbor” plan, meant to protect downwind states from harmful emissions.

Plus, is the future “made in India”?