Matt Ford

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

There’s nothing more central to fascist authoritarianism than being proud of being a grievance-fueled failure.

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

The president is on the verge of courting the severest possible legal punishments for himself and his enablers.

At oral arguments this week, a few questions from the justices ought to remind observers that it’s possible to rule against Trump while inviting other sorts of legislative or legal challenges to the policy.

A clear majority of the Supreme Court on Wednesday was unimpressed by the president’s attempt to reinterpret the Constitution.

Trump is turning the country into a huckster’s paradise. The next Democratic president will need to clean house.

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.

The president and his allies will face impeachments, lawsuits, and maybe even The Hague.

In the final of this surprisingly thrilling and utterly joyful World Baseball Classic, Venezuela outplayed their sour opponents.

Police in Virginia located a suspect by demanding location-specific cell phone data from Google. Did that violate his constitutional rights?

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.

Generations of lawmakers, straying from the Founders’ ideals—and fears—led inevitably to this era of unaccountable warmongering.

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.

While Capitol Hill lawmakers and the Supreme Court have failed to curb the administration’s authoritarianism, others are stepping into the breach to protect the Constitution.

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.