Clear Statements is a recurring series by Abbe R. Gluck on civil litigation and the modern regulatory and statutory state.

The extraordinary number of dueling opinions in the Supreme Court’s tariff case, laying bare divisions among the justices, also became the basis for a punch line.

Ms. Greenhouse, the recipient of a 1998 Pulitzer Prize, reported on the Supreme Court for The Times from 1978 to 2008. Chief ...

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 Presidency has defended President Bola Tinubu’s Executive Order, which halted revenue deductions by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited and other agencies.It said the Petroleum ...

The Court’s 6–3 ruling is a major victory for congressional authority, but its reach is narrow. It leaves most existing ...

Courtly Observations is a recurring series by Erwin Chemerinsky that focuses on what the Supreme Court’s decisions will mean ...

The chief justice’s opinion hinged on a legal principle called the “major questions doctrine” — the same doctrine that was used repeatedly to block the Biden administration’s regulations and orders.

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.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented in the ruling, which centered around the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law authorizing the president ...

Opinion: The Environmental Protection Agency’s arguments in the recent climate repeal misunderstand the major questions ...

Opinion: The EPA’s principal justification for the repeal of its finding that greenhouse gases may endanger public health ...