As the U.S. Supreme Court backs away from protecting the right to vote, state judges are looking toward their constitutions.

This administration seems to regard “extraordinary relief” from the high court as nothing more than its due.

In the four years since the Supreme Court gutted part of a landmark civil-rights law, state-level legislation has undercut the justices’ rationale for doing so.

Conservative activists keep asking the Court to hear cases that are already irrelevant—and, worryingly, the Court keeps saying yes.

The question of the former president’s possible disqualification needs to be resolved sooner or later. Sooner is better than later.

Readers weigh in on the allegations against the Supreme Court nominee.

Why are religious liberty and contraceptive rights being framed as opposites in a much-anticipated Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act?

The ex-president could yet win. And even if he doesn’t, Congress must patch up the legal loopholes he exploited.

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether one state can constitutionally mandate “partisan balance” on its judicial benches.

Yesterday’s decision demonstrates the justices’ sympathy for their powerful peers.