~nytimes-most-popular | Bookmarks (30)

Here we are, watching the narrow, tawdry version of the trial the nation ought to have had 50 years ago.

Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing was memorable for its discussion of coups, assassinations and internments — but very little about the former president’s conduct.

But several members of the Supreme Court seem willing to put presidents above the rule of law.

Such a ruling would probably send the case back to a lower court and could delay any trial until after the November election.

The former president is asking the Supreme Court to put the presidency above criminal law as he pursues a broader agenda of expanding the office’s power should he win the election.

A majority of the justices appeared skeptical of courts wading into the thorny policy questions around when local governments can punish people for sleeping and camping outdoors.

If delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, our system may never hold the man most responsible for Jan. 6 to account.

The justices considered the gravity of the assault and whether prosecutors have been stretching the law to reach members of the mob responsible for the attack.

The question for the justices was whether a federal law prohibits not only before-the-fact bribes but also after-the-fact rewards.

If justices who disagree so profoundly can do so respectfully, perhaps it is possible for our politically divided country to do the same.

Justice Clarence Thomas gave Crystal Clanton a home and a job after she left a conservative youth organization in controversy. Then the justice picked her for one of the most coveted positions in the legal world.

Erin Hawley, a law professor and wife of Senator Josh Hawley, is arguing the Supreme Court case.

The law, which empowers local officials to arrest and deport migrants who enter the country without authorization, was challenged by the Biden administration as an affront to federal power.

The former White House trade adviser is the first senior Trump aide to serve time over efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

In an interview in his chambers and in a new book, the justice, who retired in 2022, discussed Dobbs, originalism and the decline of trust in the court.

The justices’ efforts to remain unified in cases affecting the election are fraying as the former president wins one case and is granted a delay in another.

The justice distanced herself from the majority, saying it had gone too far, and from the three liberals, saying their tone sent the wrong message.

The Black share of the electorate had been on the rise for decades, but in some counties, a Supreme Court decision in 2013 changed that, according to a new analysis.