Despite their handing him an endless array of political wins over the past few years, the president still believes his nominees haven’t shown sufficient loyalty.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is trying to drive the party to extinction. What do they plan to do about it?

The chief justice insists he and his colleagues are not political actors, but can’t explain what an overtly politicized right-wing court would do differently from the one he leads.

The Supreme Court’s recent gerrymandering ruling has touched off an instantaneous demolition of Black political power as state lawmakers roll back the Second Reconstruction.

If U.S. electoral politics is going to survive the high court’s attack on equal rights, the game will have to change.

The conservative bloc has dismantled the law that ensures that Black Americans can fully participate in American electoral politics.

While the push is another example of the administration’s anti-immigrant animus, it does not have a free hand to kick masses of naturalized citizens out of the country.

In his recent broadside against the twentieth century, the justice is as ill informed as he is mean-spirited.

The president won’t increase the conservative bloc’s margins, but he could more deeply entrench the high court’s Trumpist bent.

The recent oral arguments in an important voting rights case suggest that the right wing of the high court has a suspect media diet.

The high court’s campaign to provide cover to the quid pro quo arrangement of corrupt politicians seems set to continue.

In McGirt v. Oklahoma, the high court opened the door to an expansive view of tribal territory. The State of Oklahoma has been trying to shut it ever since.

Or so the Supreme Court seemed to think, in a very weird—and quite revealing—oral argument the justices heard last week.

For the court’s conservatives, the only consistency is their inconsistency. Still, things rather conspicuously keep going the GOP’s way.

The president’s take on birthright citizenship doesn’t pass legal muster. To hear the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops tell it, it’s a moral affront as well.

The associate justice’s dissent in the tariffs case deserves some extra attention, because it is hopelessly uncoupled from law, history, and the Constitution.

The president was already doubling the budget deficit. With the high court’s tariff decision, he’s tripling it. There’s only one solution: Repeal his “big, beautiful” tax cut.

It may look like the justices made a clean break with the president, but the mess the conservative bloc made for itself raises some major questions.

If the Supreme Court takes up Taylor v. Singleton, it could be the sum of all fears for the most vulnerable Americans.