To cover the Supreme Court these days is to catalogue its lawlessness. The conservative justices’ latest decision in McMahon v. New York allows the president to effectively demolish the Department of Education—a Cabinet-level department that was created by Congress,

While the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority is pushing the law rightward, the justices appointed by GOP presidents don't always row in sync.

In an unsigned order with no explanation, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority blocked lower-court orders that had stopped President Donald Trump from shuttering the Department of Education.

The Roberts Court has asked for reargument in a key redistricting case, a move that strongly suggests the conservative majority is about to whack the Voting Rights Act again.

Mark Joseph Stern: Under federal law, Trump cannot remove Powell over a policy disagreement. Federal law expressly allows for the removal of the Fed’s board members only for “cause”—something like abuse of office or malfeasance. That means Trump can’t just sack Powell because Trump wants to slash rates and Powell wants to keep them steady.

In their decision allowing the Trump administration to dismantle the Department of Education, the justices didn’t offer one word of reasoning.

Without explanation, the majority blocked lower court orders halting President Trump’s dismantling of the Department of Education. That erodes the rule of law.

By a two-to-one margin, the public believes justices prioritize politics over the law. That's a disaster for the Supreme Court as an institution.

New analysis reveals the justices with whom Barrett most and least agreed during the Court's most recent term.

In a precedent-based legal system, you can’t know what the law is if you don’t have judicial opinions explaining why the courts have reached their conclusions.