In a landmark 2024 case, the Supreme Court ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution when they exercise their core constitutional powers. So who decides what actions are not immune?
A leading expert in the selection of federal judges analyzes the Trump and Harris records regarding judicial nominations. There’s a big difference in their approaches.
The US Supreme Court’s high-profile Grants Pass ruling allows cities to clear homeless encampments, even if they can’t offer shelter. A scholar explains why a Housing First approach is more effective.
Ahead of the election, a reproductive health law scholar lays out the broad strokes of what both Harris and Trump have done regarding abortion policy while in office.
Iowa and Idaho have passed abortion trafficking laws that stop people from helping minors get abortions. These laws open the door for questions about the right to travel to get an abortion.
A scholar of the Supreme Court and its relationship to the people of the United States says that President Joe Biden’s proposed term limits for justices can restore the court’s eroded legitimacy.
Jay Rubenstein, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Even Louis XIV of France, the epitome of absolute monarchy, did not stand above the law. Kings have always been defined and constrained by legal precedent.
In two recent rulings, the conservative justices handed state lawmakers new power to redraw congressional maps to their liking – including in ways that end up diluting the Black vote.
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling means that judges will have more power than scientific experts in determining whether people should be able to get an emergency abortion, for example.
By injecting hidden risk into the financial statements of the listed companies monitored by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Supreme Court may have set the stage for the next recession.