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

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.

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.

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

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

How political campaigns use your data

What do campaigns know about US voters, and how do they use that information to shape their strategies during elections? US political campaigns base their strategies and tactics on data collected from more than 200 million voting-age Americans. This visualization by Reuters breaks down how data firms create national databases of voter files, collecting information from a variety of sources to create detailed voter profiles and how political campaigns use that data.

In 2018, the Supreme Court sided with American Express in a case that significantly changed antitrust regulation.

The US Department of Justice sued Visa, Mastercard, and American Express in 2010 over alleged anticompetitive contracts with merchants. While Visa and Mastercard settled out of court, American Express went to trial and had its case taken all the way up to the Supreme Court—which ruled that both sides of a transaction business must be analyzed to determine a monopoly.

The Supreme Court's first major free-speech ruling rested on a legal standard that was later overturned

In Schenck v. United States (1919), the court introduced the "clear and present danger" test—permitting the government to restrict speech that posed an immediate threat to public safety. Although the doctrine was later replaced, the ruling upheld the conviction of a man who had distributed anti-draft pamphlets.

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.

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.

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

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014) extended religious exemptions to family-owned corporations

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that family-owned companies could invoke the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to refuse contraception coverage required under the Affordable Care Act. It was the first time the court recognized that for-profit corporations could hold religious beliefs.

Prior to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 1913 Pujo Committee determined that 180 people were managing more than $22B—a large slice of the entire nation's wealth—and recommended extensive regulations.

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 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.

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.

The Constitution gives Congress sweeping control over the federal budget

Article I, Section 8's Spending Clause authorizes Congress to tax, pay debts, and promote the "common Defence and general Welfare," making it one of Congress's most powerful tools—and the constitutional foundation of federal budget control.

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.

No institution wields more power in US finance than the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the US—but opinion polls indicate that most Americans don't know what it does.

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.

Term limits for Congress face a steep constitutional hurdle

Although polls show overwhelming support for congressional term limits, this would require a constitutional amendment. Since 1995, the Supreme Court has barred states from imposing their own limits, leaving only the difficult Article V amendment process as a path forward.

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.

The commerce clause gives the federal government authority to regulate interstate economic activity

This short constitutional provision has allowed Congress to regulate everything from wheat production to racial segregation, greatly expanding federal power by linking national authority to interstate economic activity.

Not all speech in the United States is protected

This page explains the categories of speech—including defamation, incitement, true threats, fraud, and obscenity—the Supreme Court has placed outside First Amendment protection and how courts determine which standard to apply when speech is challenged.

How “superfunding” a 529 account works

Contributions to 529 college savings accounts incur gift taxes if they exceed preset annual limits. However, “superfunding” allows donors to contribute five years’ worth of the gift tax limit to a 529 account in one lump sum without paying additional taxes. That means individual donors can pay $90K into a 529 plan at once and still be exempt from gift taxes.

The US framework of government has influenced the constitutions of many other countries

In 1787, the US Constitution introduced a system built on the separation of powers and individual liberties, including freedom of speech and religion. Though widely influential, its rigidity has made it less of a modern model as countries adopt more adaptable constitutional frameworks.

American CEOs are so wealthy in part because of stock buybacks, the process of a company purchasing shares of its own stock.

Americans are historically more supportive of free speech than people in most other countries

A 2016 survey of 38 countries found that the US scored highest in support for free expression, with 71% of Americans saying people should be able to say what they want without government censorship, more than in any other nation surveyed.

A 1954 Supreme Court ruling helped quiz shows avoid regulation

When the Federal Communications Committee attempted to rein in giveaway shows, the Supreme Court ruled that quiz shows were not a form of gambling because contestants did not have to risk anything to participate. Some believe that the ruling prevented proper oversight of the industry as it became more popular.

Can courts end partisan gerrymandering?

This podcast explored whether courts can rein in partisan map-drawing, focusing on North Carolina's 2023 redistricting battle, the Moore v. Harper case, and the controversial "independent state legislature" theory.

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 2024 US presidential election was a breakthrough moment for prediction markets

Founded in 2018 by MIT graduates, Kalshi won a federal appeals court ruling in October 2024 that allowed it to offer election contracts in the US. When prediction markets predicted President Donald Trump's win (more accurately than most polls), prediction markets were thrust into the public eye.

Why Congress doesn't have term limits

Eighty-seven percent of Americans want term limits for Congress. So why don't they exist? The Founders debated this in 1787 and chose not to include them, believing elections would be enough. In the 1990s, 23 states tried to make it happen—until the Supreme Court struck them all down in a 5-4 decision.

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.

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.

How universities manage their endowments

The CNBC video report explores how elite universities like Harvard handle their massive endowments, the ethical debates around their investments, and the tension between growing wealth and rising college costs. If you’re curious about where billions of dollars in higher education go, why tuition remains high despite huge endowments, or how student activism is pushing for ethical investing, this video offers a revealing, accessible look at the financial engines behind America’s top colleges.

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.

Independent redistricting commissions aim to take politics out of the map-drawing process

In several states, citizen or bipartisan panels draw congressional and legislative districts based on neutral criteria like population and geography. Learn more about how these commissions increase competitiveness in elections.

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.

The US protects free speech more broadly than any other democracy

Well-known First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams explains that the US offers stronger free-speech protections than even close democratic allies, where hate speech is criminalized, libel laws favor plaintiffs, and a "right to be forgotten" can erase truthful information from the internet.

Some argue that America is too dependent on consulting

Many major companies in America—not to mention the federal government—spend thousands of dollars a month paying to contract major consulting firms.

The rise of the campaign speech

What compels an audience shifts over time, meaning yesterday's popular speeches might not go over the same way if delivered today. However, impactful campaign speeches across time share some qualities, including taking the audience seriously, inviting listeners to engage with or respond to presented materials, and using everyday, informal language. Additionally, US political candidates typically promote themselves in their speeches, an approach initially considered vulgar in Australia and Britain.

The United States currently ranks number one for countries that enable the most financial secrecy

Financial secrecy refers to complex systems that make it easy for people and companies to hide assets. High levels of financial secrecy are associated with illegal activity, like drug trafficking and money laundering. Lax regulations around reporting who owns trusts, real estate, and businesses impact the United States' global financial secrecy ranking.

Activist investors use large ownership positions to influence companies

By holding large ownership positions, which often come with leveraged access to a company's board or the ability to force a shareholder vote, activist shareholders can change a company's corporate governance, leadership, and overall direction. Critics argue that activist shareholders hurt companies in the long term by prioritizing short-term higher shareholder returns over sustainability and growth efforts.

Why donors love to give to the wealthy schools

In this podcast episode of Revisionist History, Malcolm Gladwell explores why Hank Rowan’s $100 million gift to a small New Jersey college didn’t inspire others to support underfunded schools. Instead, donors continue to flock to elite institutions like Harvard and Stanford. “My Little Hundred Million” examines ways ideology and prestige have reshaped educational giving.

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.