Donald Trump’s Supreme Court brief characterizes historic cases and documents as saying one thing when they say the complete opposite.
erhui1979/Digital Vision Vectors/Getty Images
Donald Trump claims support in crucial court cases and historical documents for his assertion that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution. A law scholar says those documents say the opposite.
The U.S. Supreme Court.
Larry Crain/iStock/Getty Images Plus
With their upcoming decision concerning whether Donald Trump can appear on the Colorado ballot, Supreme Court justices face the possibility that the ruling could be ignored or defied by the public.
Is justice – and are the justices – blind to partisan politics?
Simple Images/Moment via Getty Images
The ‘most divided’ Supreme Court ever may have been in 1941, when seven of the nine justices were New Deal supporters appointed by the same president, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
“Impeach and remove partisan zealots from the court,” reads one protester’s sign in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on July 9, 2022.
Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images
Justices declined GOP requests to block court-approved congressional maps in North Carolina and Pennsylvania. But justices punted a bigger question over the role of courts until after the midterm elections.
Not every vote is counted equal.
Joshua Lott/AFP via Getty Images
Alabama will be allowed to keep a congressional map that critics say disadvantages Black voters. That does not bode well for 2022 midterms, argues a law scholar.
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser presenting via telephone during oral argument before the Supreme Court on May 13, 2020 in Denver, Colorado.
RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images
The Supreme Court’s pandemic-related move to oral argument over the telephone has improved those arguments and allowed the public to engage with these discussions of the meaning of our Constitution.