The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

Courts have blocked the Trump administration's 2025 executive order limiting birthright citizenship

In June 2025, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the order. Since then, two federal appellate courts have found the order unconstitutional, halting its enforcement nationwide.

Experts believe a Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship is likely in 2026

In September 2025, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to review lower court rulings striking down its executive order on birthright citizenship. If the court takes the case, a decision is expected by mid-2026.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court docket is poised to reshape presidential power

As the Supreme Court begins a new term, several major cases could define the scope of presidential authority. The court may rule on President Trump's efforts to control state National Guard units, fire independent officials, impose tariffs, and cut congressionally mandated federal spending.

The Supreme Court has greatly expanded executive power in recent years

In Trump v. United States, the court ruled that a former president enjoys absolute immunity for "official acts" in his constitutional core powers. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the court limited federal courts' ability to block executive enforcement through nationwide injunctions—decisions that shifted power toward the executive branch.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order in 2025 to restrict birthright citizenship

In 2025, President Trump signed an order attempting to end automatic citizenship for children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders—limiting it to those with a US citizen or permanent resident parent.

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

John Marshall strengthened the Supreme Court and national authority

As chief justice, John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. He reinforced federal supremacy in key cases, defining the Supreme Court as a powerful arbiter between states and the national government under the US federal system.

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

The Supreme Court curbed the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions in 2022

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA exceeded its authority by requiring industrywide carbon cuts. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion invoked the "major questions" doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to act without explicit congressional approval.

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

The powers of the judicial branch have expanded since the nation's founding

Initially, the Supreme Court was seen as the weakest branch, lacking "the power of the sword or the purse," as Alexander Hamilton noted in *Federalist No. 78*. This podcast explores the political conflicts and pivotal decisions that transformed the court into the powerful constitutional authority it is today.

The Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that Trump's emergency tariff powers didn't extend to imposing tariffs

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a 1977 law granting the president authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies—does not authorise the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, a power the Constitution reserves to Congress.

The Supreme Court blocked states from setting term limits for Congress

In US Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), the Supreme Court struck down state laws that tried to impose term limits on their congressional delegations. The court ruled such restrictions unconstitutional unless added through a federal amendment.

A poll from May 2025 found that a majority of Americans oppose ending birthright citizenship

As legal challenges progressed, a May 2025 NPR/Ipsos poll showed fewer than one-third of Americans supported eliminating birthright citizenship, despite broader public backing for other immigration restrictions.

A 2013 Supreme Court case weakened federal oversight of redistricting

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula, reducing federal oversight of voting laws—including redistricting—and allowing changes to take effect without prior approval.

Watch scholars debate Supreme Court term limits

In a debate from 2017, legal scholars from across the political spectrum spar over whether justices should serve fixed terms. The discussion highlights bipartisan concerns about judicial independence, accountability, and the risks of lifetime tenure.

The Supreme Court has never definitively settled federal war powers

Despite more than two centuries of conflict over war powers, the Supreme Court has consistently avoided defining the precise boundary between congressional and executive authority, leaving that boundary to be contested by the political branches.

Courts referee federalism disputes between Congress and the states

Modern federalism is primarily worked out through litigation. The Supreme Court decides disputes in written opinions that explain when federal law preempts state authority, how far Congress's powers extend, and when states may resist.

Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

The 1803 ruling empowered courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, permanently expanding the Supreme Court's authority and cementing its role as a coequal branch. This video explains the case and its lasting impact.

Read the majority opinion that established judicial review

In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a written constitution is "paramount law" and that courts must refuse to enforce statutes that conflict with it. He declared that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

Explore the most impactful Supreme Court cases in US history

Browse by constitutional topic to explore key rulings, their historical impact, and the legal principles they established. Each case includes a summary of the decision, along with notable excerpts from majority and dissenting opinions.

Supreme Court justices serve for life

The Constitution grants Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments to shield them from electoral politics and outside pressure, a design meant to preserve judicial independence but now widely debated due to longer lifespans and partisan balances of the court.

The 1948 Supreme Court ruling was overturned in 2020

In 2020, US District Court Judge Analisa Torres overturned the 1948 Supreme Court ruling that broke up the studio system—effectively allowing the film industry to become vertically integrated once again—with companies like Amazon and Disney taking advantage of the relaxed regulations.

Thousands of state voting changes have been federally blocked since the Voting Rights Act

Since 1965, federal oversight has blocked thousands of state-level voting changes—including redistricting plans—by requiring approval for measures that could affect minority representation, a process scaled back by the Supreme Court in 2013.

Most Americans support age limits for justices, elected officials

As members of Congress and Supreme Court justices continue to serve at an average age far older than in the past, polls show a majority of Americans favor setting an age limit for these roles. Roughly 79% support caps for federal elected officials, and 74% favor such limits for Supreme Court justices. A constitutional amendment would be required.

Advocates for restricting birthright citizenship argue that some parents aren't 'fully subject to US jurisdiction'

Proponents of limiting birthright citizenship claim that undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders do not meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement, arguing their allegiance remains with another country.

Marshall used deft political maneuvering to increase the court's power in Marbury v. Madison

This podcast explores how Chief Justice John Marshall avoided a direct clash with President Jefferson by denying William Marbury his commission—while simultaneously declaring that courts can strike down unconstitutional laws—cementing judicial review, and expanding the Supreme Court's authority.

John Marshall inherited a marginal and largely inactive Supreme Court

By 1801, the court had little institutional authority or public standing. Its first three chief justices served only 11 years combined, and in its first decade, the court decided only 63 cases—none of which struck down a federal or state law.

John Marshall presided over more than 1,100 Supreme Court decisions

During his 34-year tenure, the Marshall court issued 1,129 decisions, including 1,042 unanimous rulings. Marshall authored more than 500 majority opinions—over half of the court's total output during his tenure as chief justice.

The Supreme Court extended the ban on discriminatory jury strikes to include gender in 1994

In J.E.B. v. Alabama, the court ruled 6-3 that using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on sex violates the Equal Protection Clause, building on its 1986 Batson decision banning race-based strikes.

Court-packing is the attempt to change the number of Supreme Court justices to shift the balance

Because the Constitution leaves the court's size to Congress, presidents have periodically sought to expand or reshape it. This explainer examines past efforts—including Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 plan—and why court-packing remains so controversial.

In the SEC vs. Jarkesy ruling of 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to seek civil penalties for securities fraud in-house, which significantly scaled back the agency's enforcement capabilities.

Watch 2 Supreme Court justices debate how the Constitution should be interpreted

In a 2009 conversation, former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer lay out competing approaches to constitutional interpretation: Scalia's textualist, strict constructionism versus Breyer's evolutionary view of the Constitution in practice.

Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to abortion until Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned it

For decades, the Supreme Court shaped abortion access through constitutional rulings, from Roe's recognition of a right to abortion to Dobbs' returning regulatory power to the states. This explainer tracks key cases, impacts, and current justices' views.

Cases during John Marshall's tenure defined the principles of federal Indian law

During Marshall's tenure, three landmark rulings—Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia—established foundational doctrines of federal Indian law, defining tribal sovereignty, limiting state authority, and placing primary responsibility for Native affairs in the federal government.

Gibbons v. Ogden expanded federal power over interstate commerce

In 1824, the Supreme Court unanimously invalidated a New York steamboat monopoly, ruling that navigation between states constitutes interstate commerce. Chief Justice John Marshall held that Congress has authority over such commerce and that conflicting state laws are void under the supremacy clause.

The supremacy clause establishes federal law as the highest authority

The supremacy clause states that the United States Constitution and federal laws enacted under it supersede conflicting state laws, ensuring national authority prevails when federal and state governments disagree.

The separation of powers is a pivotal component of the US Constitution

Explore how the three branches interact through the Supreme Court case of US v. Alvarez. The Supreme Court first struck down a law, then Congress and the president later revised it—illustrating how judicial review can reshape legislation and executive action.

Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people born in the United States and required states to provide equal legal protection to all.

State supreme court justices almost never serve for life

Unlike US Supreme Court justices, 99% of state supreme court justices face term limits, reselection, or mandatory retirement ages. Since 1970, they've averaged 13 years on the bench—half the tenure of their federal counterparts.

See who appointed the Supreme Court's 116 throughout its history.

In 2025, the 'two strikes and you're out' rule took effect to protect consumers from repeated attempts to withdraw money

After years of being delayed by litigation, a 2024 US Supreme Court ruling upheld a law that prevents lenders from attempting to take payments from accounts with insufficient funds more than twice without reauthorization. This tactic is commonly used by payday loan companies, which technically require repayment on the day borrowers receive their paychecks.

How the Trump administration explained the firing of the NSF's National Science Board

The White House argued that the April 24, 2026, decision resulted from the 2021 US v. Arthrex Supreme Court ruling, which "set limits on the powers of executive branch officials who are not Senate-confirmed" and therefore conflicts with the law that created the NSB. As of May 2026, the administration has yet to explain its next steps for the advisory arm of the National Science Foundation, which has lost about a third of its staff since the start of 2025.

Citizens United extended First Amendment protections to corporate political spending

The Supreme Court's 2010 decision struck down limits on independent political expenditures by corporations and other organizations, ruling that such spending is protected speech—a decision that was deeply contested and reshaped campaign finance law.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed unlimited independent spending in US elections

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowed corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections independently of candidates—while leaving direct contribution limits intact—expanding the role of wealthy donors and outside influence in American political campaigns.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called states 'laboratories of democracy'

Louis Brandeis argued that federalism allows states to experiment with new policies without committing the entire nation, thereby allowing successful ideas to spread while limiting the risks of failure.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing plan sought to expand the Supreme Court—and failed

Frustrated by Supreme Court rulings against the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the court in 1937. The failed plan triggered fierce backlash and is regarded as the last serious presidential attempt to alter the court's size for ideological ends.

Take a deep dive into the constitutional foundations of judicial review

In this episode of "This Constitution," the hosts take a law-focused approach to judicial review—examining its roots in Article III and the supremacy clause, its development through Marbury v. Madison, and the ongoing constitutional debates about whether the court's power strengthens or strains American democracy.