Supreme Court

President Donald Trump's agenda just got dealt a "monumental" defeat by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a legal expert.

The court ruled 6-3 against the 79-year-old president's sweeping tariffs by finding that his invocation of an emergency statute to regulate global trade was unlawful, and CNN's Elie Honig explained the implications of the decision on "The Situation Room."

The Supreme Court appears poised to make a ruling on the legality of President Donald Trump’s unprecedented tariffs “as soon as today,” Axios reported on Friday, a ruling that could have colossal impacts on the global economy, and, according to Trump, crash the entire U.S. economy.

“Analysts had initially expected a swift ruling from the highest court, but the uncertainty has dragged on for longer than expected,” wrote Axios senior economic reporter Courtenay Brown. “The delay is a possible sign of the enormity of the decision that, either way, could rattle the global economy.”

President Trump promoted a New York Post opinion piece attacking Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Thursday morning via Truth Social.

Writer by Miranda Devine criticized Jackson's attendance at the Grammy Awards ceremony, where multiple artists used their platforms to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of a Republican congressman, Rep. Mike Bost of Illinois, who is trying to sue over his state's mail-in voting rules.

The 7-2 decision, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, doesn't immediately change election rules anywhere; however, it establishes a precedent that potentially makes it easier for candidates for office to sue over election rules.

Republicans face growing concern that a significant Supreme Court ruling they anticipate will influence November's elections in their direction may not be delivered in time, according to Politico.

The case in question is Louisiana v. Callais, which would effectively dismantle key provisions of the Voting Rights Act and allow Republican-controlled legislatures to redraw districts in ways that diminish the political power of Black and Hispanic communities.

The U.S. Supreme Court could upend the midterm elections this year by striking down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act.

Republicans face long odds against maintaining its narrow House majority with President Donald Trump dragging down GOP approval with his own negative performance ratings, and no party successfully holding on to unified control of both houses of Congress and the White House in a midterm election since 1978, but the Supreme Court could offer a glimmer of hope, reported Bloomberg.

Each year, legal commentators Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern review the Supreme Court's most problematic decisions — and their choice for 2025's most egregious comes as a surprise.

Writing in Slate, Lithwick declared the case NIH v. American Public Health Association as the year's worst ruling, citing it as emblematic of broader institutional dysfunction.

Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck sounded the alarm this weekend over the Supreme Court and its increasing use of what legal scholars have dubbed the “shadow docket,” a process by which the court institutes rulings unsigned, and without oral arguments, explanations or written opinions.

The Supreme Court has utilized the shadow docket well over a dozen times since President Donald Trump retook the White House in January, at least 14 of which were in cases that tested the president’s power, with the court siding with Trump in the vast majority of its rulings.

The Supreme Court's decision blocking President Trump from deploying the National Guard into American cities has alarmed legal experts who fear the ruling may inadvertently create a pathway for the administration to invoke the Insurrection Act.

Trump and his aides have repeatedly suggested they would invoke the rarely used law, which would be politically unpopular but give him broad authority to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a footnote that the court's opinion "could cause the president to use the U.S. military more than the National Guard," reported CNN.

New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.