Install
The Supreme Court blog
The Founding Ideas in Order, From Magna Carta to the Bill of RightsDated entries from Magna Carta in 1215 to the Bill of Rights in 1791, each with a line on why it mattered to the American system of limited government.How Republican presidents have done picking Supreme Court justices since 1953A nominee-by-nominee table of every Republican pick since Eisenhower shows the record is mixed, and that vetting for philosophy beats trusting a party label.A Five-Question Constitutional Test You Can Run on Any Federal LawA repeatable worksheet of five questions, each tied to a clause or Supreme Court case, with one made-up bill worked through every step.The Takings Clause in Four Cases Every Landowner Should KnowOne sentence in the Fifth Amendment protects your land from being taken without pay. Four Supreme Court cases show what that sentence covers.Kelo v. New London and the Backlash That Rewrote State LawIn 2005 the Supreme Court let a city seize homes for private development, and voters of both parties made it the most unpopular ruling in years.Three Roads to Changing Birthright Citizenship and Which One WorksAn amendment, a statute or a test case: each route to changing birthright citizenship has a different price, a different obstacle and a different verdict.What the 39th Congress Meant by Subject to the Jurisdiction ThereofThe 1868 Citizenship Clause is the center of the birthright debate. The history in order, the weak point of the original-meaning case, and the better argument.A Farmer's Wheat Crop and the Long Fight Over the Commerce ClauseA farmer fed his own chickens with his own wheat and lost at the Supreme Court. Nine cases from 1824 to 2012 show how federal power grew and where it stopped.The Constitution Never Mentions Schools and That Is the Whole PointThe Constitution never mentions schools, the Tenth Amendment says why that matters, and Washington's spending power is the strongest objection, answered.The pro-choice scholars who called Roe bad law long before DobbsLiberal scholars who liked the result of Roe v. Wade attacked its reasoning from 1973 on, which undercuts the claim that Dobbs was a political coup.Seven Things Americans Get Wrong About the First AmendmentHate speech, fire in a theater, private companies, flag burning, the press clause and more. Seven popular claims tested against the cases, with verdicts.The Supreme Court Questions Your Brother-in-Law Keeps Asking, AnsweredTwelve plain questions about the Supreme Court, from why there are nine justices to what a 4-4 tie does, with plain answers for the family dinner argument.Every Step in Confirming a Federal Judge, from Vacancy to OathNine steps take a federal judge from an empty seat to a robe, and each one is a place where a nomination can be sped up or stopped. Here they are in order.FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court in 1937 and His Own Party Said NoRoosevelt won in a landslide, asked for six extra justices, and lost to senators of his own party. The lesson still answers any talk of enlarging the Court.The Court Did Not Ban Clean Air. It Told EPA to Ask Congress First.West Virginia v. EPA did not strip the government of power to protect the environment. It decided who makes a decision this big: elected lawmakers.How to Read a Supreme Court Opinion Without a Law DegreeLearn the anatomy of an opinion with District of Columbia v. Heller as the worked example, so you can check any claim about a ruling in about ten minutes.Citizenship, Equal Protection and the Ballot in the 14th and 15th AmendmentsA clause-by-clause reading of the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Republican Congress that wrote them, and how the Slaughter-House Cases bent their meaning.Meyer, Pierce, Yoder and Troxel Prove the Constitution Puts Parents FirstSupreme Court cases from 1923 to 2000 show parental rights are old constitutional law, and where the state's power over children really stops.Originalism Explained for People Who Skipped Law SchoolOriginalism says the Constitution means what it meant when ratified until the people amend it, and it limits judges more than critics admit.Bruen and Rahimi explained, the history test every gun law now facesSince Bruen, courts ask whether a gun law fits the nation's tradition of firearm regulation, and Rahimi showed what that test does and does not demand.Marbury v. Madison and the Power the Supreme Court Gave Itself in 1803Nothing in the text says courts may strike down laws. John Marshall claimed that power in a case where he refused to hand William Marbury his commission.How McDonald v. Chicago carried the Second Amendment to every stateHeller covered only Washington, D.C. The real fight was whether the Bill of Rights binds states and cities, and the answer starts after the Civil War.The three-part test that haunted churches for fifty years is finally goneThe Lemon test gave courts three prongs and decades of contradictory results. Here is how it died, what replaced it, and the best objection to the replacement.William Howard Taft lost the White House and then got the job he wantedTaft is the only man to be both President and Chief Justice, and his court work built more of modern America than his presidency did. Here is how.What the Second Amendment says, read one clause at a timeTwenty-seven words, read the way a lawyer reads them: prefatory clause, operative clause, and what the key phrases meant in 1791.Madison Built a Government Where Ambition Fights Ambition, and It WorksThe Founders split power three ways and gave each branch the motive to resist the others, which is why conservatives defend the structure whoever is in office.From 98 to 0 to Party Lines, a Timeline of Supreme Court ConfirmationsScalia won 98 to 0 in 1986, and modern confirmations run near party lines. The road between runs through specific fights, not one villain. Here is the timeline.How a Handful of Law Students in 1982 Changed the Federal CourtsThe Federalist Society began as a student symposium in 1982 and grew into the network behind conservative law: ideas beat institutions over decades.What the Dobbs decision actually decided, step by step and in plain EnglishA plain-English walk through Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, from the Mississippi law to the vote, the test, the reasoning and what it left open.Antonin Scalia Sided With Flag Burners and Defendants, and That Is the PointThe justice who led the originalist revival often ruled against the outcome conservatives wanted, because the text required it. That made him trustworthy.A baker, a web designer and the line between customers and messagesA business open to the public must serve everyone, say critics. The answer turns on whether the law compels a person's service or a person's message.Seven Free Speech Myths, From Hate Speech to Shouting Fire in a TheaterHalf the arguments about free speech start from a rule that does not exist. Seven popular claims, tested against the cases, with a verdict on each.Why the government cannot tell a church who its ministers areThe ministerial exception comes from both religion clauses. Two unanimous-to-lopsided rulings, 2012 and 2020, explain who counts and why the rule has limits.Eight Supreme Court Cases That Explain What the First Amendment ProtectsA dated tour of eight free speech cases, from 1931 to 2011, with the facts and the rule each left behind. Most protected someone the majority disliked.The Living Constitution Sounds Reasonable Until You Ask Who Gets to Update ItThe living-constitution view is right that society changes, and Article V already answers who updates the text: the people, not nine judges.Two Ten Commandments cases on one day, opposite results, and the reasonOn June 27, 2005 the Court struck one Decalogue display and upheld another, both 5-4. The table shows what a county or school board can lawfully do.From Everson to Carson, the Court Cases That Opened the Door to ChoiceA dated timeline of the Supreme Court rulings from 1947 to 2022 on religious schools and school choice, and why each one mattered to a family.Why Heller got it right and the 'militia only' reading falls apartThe Stevens dissent in Heller at full strength, answered point by point: why the individual-right reading is the right one.Where 'a wall of separation' really comes from and what it was built forThe phrase comes from a short 1802 letter to a Baptist minority, and it never meant scrubbing faith out of public life. Here is the paper trail.