Read SCOTUSblog for daily, nonpartisan coverage of the US Supreme Court

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.

Explore biographies of every justice who has served on the Supreme Court

This archive traces the whole history of the Supreme Court of the United States through detailed biographies of every justice, outlining their backgrounds, appointments, and the legal eras and decisions they helped shape.

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.

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.

Meet the 9 justices currently serving on the US Supreme Court.

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

The Supreme Court term runs from October to June

The Supreme Court of the United States begins each term on the first Monday in October, alternating two-week sittings and recesses, hearing arguments mainly on Mondays through Wednesdays, and deciding which of thousands of petitions will receive full review.

Photography and video are prohibited in the Supreme Court—but artists are not

Because cameras are banned inside the Supreme Court of the United States, courtroom artists document proceedings through sketches. This exhibition features works from 1964 to today, capturing the human drama of landmark cases and shaping how Americans visualize justice.

The opera based on the friendship of US Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and Scalia

Former US Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia had a friendship that fascinated the country. The unsuspecting bond formed between people on two opposing ends of the political spectrum even inspired an opera titled “Scalia/Ginsburg” by composer Derrick Wang.

In recent decades, Supreme Court nominations have grown increasingly contentious and partisan

This video examines the historical shift from bipartisan, civil confirmation hearings to the deeply divisive process seen today. It focuses on the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork, the most recent nominee to be rejected, as an important moment in this transformation.

The Dred Scott decision denied African Americans citizenship, upheld slavery, and marked the first use of judicial review since Marbury v. Madison

This page explores the case, providing information on Dred Scott and his case before the Supreme Court. Explore the implications of one of the most critical cases in the history of the court.

See how a US Supreme Court justice is nominated and confirmed

A president nominates a Supreme Court justice, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducts public hearings and background vetting, and the full Senate debates and votes on confirmation—a process explained step by step in this video.

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 solicitor general argues the federal government's cases before the Supreme Court

Sometimes called the "10th justice," the solicitor general is the DOJ official responsible for representing the United States before the Supreme Court—deciding which cases the government will appeal, filing briefs, and arguing on behalf of federal interests.

'So to Speak' is a podcast covering the front lines of free-speech debates today

Produced by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, this podcast covers the most contested free-speech issues of the moment—from campus censorship to social media regulation—and features interviews with lawyers, scholars, journalists, and activists.

Listen to 'We the People,' a weekly podcast from the National Constitution Center

Hosted by Jeffrey Rosen, this weekly podcast from the National Constitution Center brings leading legal scholars together to debate major constitutional questions, presenting competing arguments in a balanced, nonpartisan format.

Explore important free-speech cases with a First Amendment litigator

Hosted by Ken White, the "Make No Law" podcast explores landmark First Amendment cases—from student speech to defamation—breaking down complex legal battles in an accessible way for lawyers and nonlawyers alike.

Hear about the individuals who have reshaped the Constitution throughout American history

This multi-episode podcast series from The Washington Post explores how debates, court decisions, and influential individuals have shaped the Constitution as Americans pushed the nation to live up to its founding ideals.

There’s an artificial intelligence model trained on bankruptcy law

Although it's designed for lawyers, the tool is able to help everyday browsers synthesize important cases and point users to relevant documents about them. One sample using it asks Chatlaw to explain the significance of a recent case and then to define relevant terminology.

Read through the actual text of the US Constitution

This helpful guide from the US Congress includes annotations that provide valuable insights into the background, crafting, and legacy of each article in the document. Additionally, the resource offers accessible legal analysis and interpretations.

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.

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.

Debating the Constitution today

The Constitution continues to shape our political and social life today. If you want to understand how today’s political debates connect to the Constitution, check out this podcast from the National Constitution Center. The weekly program features experts from diverse perspectives and explores how constitutional principles shape modern issues.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Learn about the long and contested history of free speech in America

This podcast examines how American free speech protections evolved—from the Founders' debates to landmark Supreme Court rulings—and why the country arrived at one of the most expansive speech regimes in the world.

Explore state-level data on juries.

A primary source timeline of US history (1600-1968)

Compiled by the Library of Congress, this archive walks through important events in US history through civil rights era, while providing primary sources to explore.

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.

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.

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.

Sports betting, explained

Since a 2018 Supreme Court decision overturned the Bradley Act, which spurred a state-by-state legalization of online gambling, sports betting has become a rapidly growing multibillion-dollar industry.

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.

Hear leading experts on constitutional law discuss the legacy and impact of Marshall

In this podcast, constitutional scholars Michael Gerhardt (University of North Carolina) and Kevin Walsh (University of Richmond) analyze Marshall's 34-year tenure, assessing his role in establishing judicial review, expanding federal power, and shaping the court's institutional authority.

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.

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.

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.

A comprehensive state-by-state report of LGBTQ+ rights in America

The State Equality Index (SEI) is a comprehensive state-by-state report that provides a review of statewide laws and policies that affect LGBTQ+ people and their families. The SEI rates all 50 states plus Washington, D.C. in six areas of law. Each...

Compare how justice ministries and courts are structured around the world

The Federal Judicial Center's "Judiciaries Worldwide" series provides clear and accessible comparisons of how various countries organize their justice ministries, prosecutors, courts, and judicial councils—emphasizing global models of independence, oversight, and institutional structure.

Track the unusual push for mid-decade redistricting across the US

The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a live tracker showing where mid-decade congressional redistricting is underway, detailing which states are pursuing new maps, the legislative and constitutional methods being used, and how courts are responding as the 2026 elections approach.

Listen to a podcast that traces the history of DOJ antitrust enforcement

This podcast series traces how the US government's approach to regulating big business has changed over a century—from the DOJ's breakup of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil monopoly, through lawyer Robert Bork's influence on how courts interpret competition law, to the FTC's modern antitrust lawsuit against Amazon.

The Dred Scott decision denied citizenship to people of African descent

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Black Americans could not be US citizens. The decision heightened an already brewing conflict and became a key factor in pushing the nation toward civil war.

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.

Germany's Constitutional Court can review laws without waiting for a specific case

The German court follows a model of "abstract judicial review"—meaning it can assess the constitutionality of legislation in the abstract, rather than only in concrete disputes. Its binding decisions apply to all German courts.